I have used Apple maps almost exclusively since it was developed and the change from then until now is amazing. Just a few weeks ago I was trying out the live traffic feature for the first time and was amazed that it showed a traffic slowdown because of an accident that was only 15 minutes old....and that's in Vancouver, BC....a "foreign" country. It might not be perfect, hardly anything is, but it's making giant strides, imho.
I'm also in Vancouver and took a wrong turn down a street because Apple Maps didn't show the recently installed barricade that only allows bike traffic (recently as in about 18 months old). So I fired up Google Maps to see and sure enough it was wrong too.
There's too many people who are fixated on finding an issue with Maps and then using that to imply that Maps overall is an utter failure. Sort of like those same few pictures of the Hoover Dam or other bridges that didn't render correctly in Apple Maps that are always reposted over and over (I've seen them all resurface again today as this "news" seems to make the trolls happy). You'd think if Apple Maps was so bad that these losers could find some new errors to post about.
My wife is an outpatient nurse and visits around 5 clients a day. She uses Apple Maps here in Vancouver and rarely has an issue finding an address. She used Google Maps before and it was also extremely accurate, but occasionally (as with Apple Maps) she finds something wrong.
Apple needs to "go slow" with its maps initiative - making sure that its base data sets are accurate, and more importantly updated. Their partners (Filemaker I'm thinking of you) need to integrate Apple's maps into their workflow and there needs to be a feedback system to ensure constant updates (this will be especially important as Apple rolls out its car navigation system).
By data set accuracy, do you mean whether the location exists on the map, or are you referring to the routes that the application generates? For example, locations appear correctly for me, but Apple Maps often provides less than ideal directions, at times going around in circles. Google maps seems to provide better routes.
By data set accuracy, do you mean whether the location exists on the map, or are you referring to the routes that the application generates? For example, locations appear correctly for me, but Apple Maps often provides less than ideal directions, at times going around in circles. Google maps seems to provide better routes.
The data sets (there are many of them) are quite complicated. These are all relational databases linked via a geolocation (probably a UTM coordinate), and include such things as the base photogrammetry, 3-d renders, open source mapping (which must then be reconciled with the 3-d renders (which is a whole complicated process), data tables tying street addresses to the UTM (or other geolocation base data). This is just for the base maps, then routing routines, address search, social media, and device geolocation services must all be added. All of this must be done a worldwide basis in multiple languages - with much of the open source and satellite (photogrammetry) data being either questionable or out of date.
One of the really nice features in GMaps is the ability to drag and drop a route (that may be more suitable for you). This is but one of the many ways the Google is able to glean "up to date" info through crowdsourcing. Apple does not yet have a robust feedback system for its maps.
As for those who state that Apple should have never gotten into the mapping game - geolocation is one of the critical pieces of information for any problem (who, what, where, when, why). Apple tried to partner with Google (which was the correct move as Google's database is the best), but the competition/cooperation thing got in the way (Google realized the power that Apple might have over mobile search/ads with the itPhone so they had to come up with the Android counter measure). Apple has to have geolocation services as a core feature in all of its products (especially mobile) or it will fall behind.
Make up your mind. Apple should not be in the maps business or Apple should spend on a street view feature.
I disagree on the former. Apple should rely less and less on outside companies for core features.
Particularly core features from competitors such as Google who have shown they'll throttle the iOS version to retain their own platform's advantage, that's understandable but makes offering an internal choice very compelling. Ex.: Look how rapidly Google improved Google Maps for iOS the minute Apple rolled out their own.
I previously made the suggestion that Apple tap users to fill in map data and street/sidewalk-level imagery using their iPhones in exchange for iTunes credits. Turn data and image gathering into a geocaching game.
Google-developed Ingress game (for Android) is something similar, but replacing credits with sci-fi gamification. People go all over the world taking screenshot of Point of Interests and submitting to Ingress game; an accepted POI becomes a "portal". The game is all over capturing portals and connecting to other portal, and for capturing a portal you have to physically walk/drive within a few meters from the portal, with a phone/tablet with data plan and GPS active. Photos of POIs are clearly for collecting a worldwide database of monuments, sculptures, iconic commercial places and so on. The game interface is built on Google Maps and people moving around (playing the game) continuously provide player's location to servers (probably used someway).
And that even today Google Earth's 3D views suck compared to Apple's... not to mention you can't use Google Earth 3D views with navigation.
[/URL][/CENTER]
I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
I've said it's the most gimmicky feature I've seen from Apple. I'd love to have a StreetView like service that would let me see the actual signs and numbers for buildings from a given location. I've never once needed to use FlyOver but I have had to jump out of Apple Maps to use Google Maps specifically for StreetView.
Yep, the WWDC keynote had so many gaps and so much obvious padding that they were clearly trying to fill time left over due the dearth of new features and announcements.
Seriously though, that keynote could have been three hours and people would still be talking about what Apple didn't announce, and why. The great thing about Apple, for rumor-mongers and idle speculators, is that they're so tight-lipped that to confirm or deny anything is a challenge so people can just make stuff up and it's viable for months, or even years (yeah, I'm looking at you Gene Munster).
Yep, the WWDC keynote had so many gaps and so much obvious padding that they were clearly trying to fill time left over due the dearth of new features and announcements.
Of course it was. If Apple was really going to announce all the things half-assed tech bloggers suggested, Cook and Federighi would still be at Moscone.
There's too many people who are fixated on finding an issue with Maps and then using that to imply that Maps overall is an utter failure. Sort of like those same few pictures of the Hoover Dam or other bridges that didn't render correctly in Apple Maps that are always reposted over and over (I've seen them all resurface again today as this "news" seems to make the trolls happy). You'd think if Apple Maps was so bad that these losers could find some new errors to post about.
Comments
I have used Apple maps almost exclusively since it was developed and the change from then until now is amazing. Just a few weeks ago I was trying out the live traffic feature for the first time and was amazed that it showed a traffic slowdown because of an accident that was only 15 minutes old....and that's in Vancouver, BC....a "foreign" country. It might not be perfect, hardly anything is, but it's making giant strides, imho.
I'm also in Vancouver and took a wrong turn down a street because Apple Maps didn't show the recently installed barricade that only allows bike traffic (recently as in about 18 months old). So I fired up Google Maps to see and sure enough it was wrong too.
There's too many people who are fixated on finding an issue with Maps and then using that to imply that Maps overall is an utter failure. Sort of like those same few pictures of the Hoover Dam or other bridges that didn't render correctly in Apple Maps that are always reposted over and over (I've seen them all resurface again today as this "news" seems to make the trolls happy). You'd think if Apple Maps was so bad that these losers could find some new errors to post about.
My wife is an outpatient nurse and visits around 5 clients a day. She uses Apple Maps here in Vancouver and rarely has an issue finding an address. She used Google Maps before and it was also extremely accurate, but occasionally (as with Apple Maps) she finds something wrong.
Apple needs to "go slow" with its maps initiative - making sure that its base data sets are accurate, and more importantly updated. Their partners (Filemaker I'm thinking of you) need to integrate Apple's maps into their workflow and there needs to be a feedback system to ensure constant updates (this will be especially important as Apple rolls out its car navigation system).
By data set accuracy, do you mean whether the location exists on the map, or are you referring to the routes that the application generates? For example, locations appear correctly for me, but Apple Maps often provides less than ideal directions, at times going around in circles. Google maps seems to provide better routes.
Which is it? To map or not to map?
Give me a break.
I want 'avoid highways' in Apple Maps.
This is what I want.
Period.
By data set accuracy, do you mean whether the location exists on the map, or are you referring to the routes that the application generates? For example, locations appear correctly for me, but Apple Maps often provides less than ideal directions, at times going around in circles. Google maps seems to provide better routes.
The data sets (there are many of them) are quite complicated. These are all relational databases linked via a geolocation (probably a UTM coordinate), and include such things as the base photogrammetry, 3-d renders, open source mapping (which must then be reconciled with the 3-d renders (which is a whole complicated process), data tables tying street addresses to the UTM (or other geolocation base data). This is just for the base maps, then routing routines, address search, social media, and device geolocation services must all be added. All of this must be done a worldwide basis in multiple languages - with much of the open source and satellite (photogrammetry) data being either questionable or out of date.
One of the really nice features in GMaps is the ability to drag and drop a route (that may be more suitable for you). This is but one of the many ways the Google is able to glean "up to date" info through crowdsourcing. Apple does not yet have a robust feedback system for its maps.
As for those who state that Apple should have never gotten into the mapping game - geolocation is one of the critical pieces of information for any problem (who, what, where, when, why). Apple tried to partner with Google (which was the correct move as Google's database is the best), but the competition/cooperation thing got in the way (Google realized the power that Apple might have over mobile search/ads with the itPhone so they had to come up with the Android counter measure). Apple has to have geolocation services as a core feature in all of its products (especially mobile) or it will fall behind.
Make up your mind. Apple should not be in the maps business or Apple should spend on a street view feature.
I disagree on the former. Apple should rely less and less on outside companies for core features.
Particularly core features from competitors such as Google who have shown they'll throttle the iOS version to retain their own platform's advantage, that's understandable but makes offering an internal choice very compelling. Ex.: Look how rapidly Google improved Google Maps for iOS the minute Apple rolled out their own.
Google-developed Ingress game (for Android) is something similar, but replacing credits with sci-fi gamification. People go all over the world taking screenshot of Point of Interests and submitting to Ingress game; an accepted POI becomes a "portal". The game is all over capturing portals and connecting to other portal, and for capturing a portal you have to physically walk/drive within a few meters from the portal, with a phone/tablet with data plan and GPS active. Photos of POIs are clearly for collecting a worldwide database of monuments, sculptures, iconic commercial places and so on. The game interface is built on Google Maps and people moving around (playing the game) continuously provide player's location to servers (probably used someway).
Many of the haters forget that Google Maps was equally crappy it's first 2-3 years.
And that even today Google Earth's 3D views suck compared to Apple's...
Google
Apple
I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
I've said it's the most gimmicky feature I've seen from Apple. I'd love to have a StreetView like service that would let me see the actual signs and numbers for buildings from a given location. I've never once needed to use FlyOver but I have had to jump out of Apple Maps to use Google Maps specifically for StreetView.
You really believe Google is a threat to Apple? In what regard?
Was that a serious question?
You really still trying to use feigned incredulity as a trolling tactic?
Seriously though, that keynote could have been three hours and people would still be talking about what Apple didn't announce, and why. The great thing about Apple, for rumor-mongers and idle speculators, is that they're so tight-lipped that to confirm or deny anything is a challenge so people can just make stuff up and it's viable for months, or even years (yeah, I'm looking at you Gene Munster).
Tell me that is sarcasm.
Tell me that is sarcasm.
Of course it was. If Apple was really going to announce all the things half-assed tech bloggers suggested, Cook and Federighi would still be at Moscone.
There's too many people who are fixated on finding an issue with Maps and then using that to imply that Maps overall is an utter failure. Sort of like those same few pictures of the Hoover Dam or other bridges that didn't render correctly in Apple Maps that are always reposted over and over (I've seen them all resurface again today as this "news" seems to make the trolls happy). You'd think if Apple Maps was so bad that these losers could find some new errors to post about.