6 ms·

By the way, for anyone who prefers Google Maps to load fast and show actual satellite/aerial imagery (rather than trying to render each tree as a weird crumpled

By the way, for anyone who prefers Google Maps to load fast and show actual satellite/aerial imagery (rather than trying to render each tree as a weird crumpled blob) there's a flag you can set to get the old, fast 2D mode: https://maps.google.com/?force=canvas https://maps.google.com/?force=canvas

dysoco 8y ago
That does seem to show older images though.
- chch 8y ago
  Agreed, the images do seem lower quality than they used to be. I was curious, though, and chose buildings at random around the Google office in NYC, just to do a side-by-side, and even the old pictures look better: https://i.imgur.com/0xEG4pb.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0xEG4pb.jpg https://i.imgur.com/bxwr3Ez.jpg https://i.imgur.com/bxwr3Ez.jpg
  - qiqitori 8y ago
    I'm assuming left is old and right is new? This looks like aerial photography shot from a plane rather than satellite imagery, which seems like it would depend more on the quality(?) of the plane than the quality of the cameras.
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
Thank you! I'm actually quite annoyed that Google took away the visible option to disabled the 3D aerial view. It's such a resource hog, and my work's internet is often quite slow, and 3D has far more data to retrieve.
- jensvdh 8y ago
  People like you are the reason we need to support IE6
  - jcrawfordor 8y ago
    I think it's worth replying to this to reinforce the point that the new mode has technical disadvantages compared to the old mode. Some of my projects involve a great deal of time spent looking at aerial imagery, sometimes for hours a day, and while Google Maps is not the panacea of aerial images it is one of the best single sources in terms of usability and quality of images. That said, prior to knowing this trick I was stuck with the effectively unmaintained Google Earth instead of the web view primarily because of the web maps insistence on the 3D rendering mode. The attempt to conform buildings and, most annoyingly, trees to the elevation data makes the imagery almost useless at close zoom levels, as all the actual detail disappears into clutter artificially introduced by the edges on the elevation data. It significantly reduces the amount of spatial resolution you can get out of areas where they have very good images. Earth still has tools that web view doesn't have, but often I'm not even that interested in measurements and just want to be able to carefully inspect the image. This doesn't seem to be something Google wants to support any more!
    - puzzle 8y ago
      It's not elevation data, it's reconstructed geometry.
      - jcrawfordor 8y ago
        My assumption had been that Google built these models using high-resolution LIDAR data, which is why I called it elevation... on a little more research though it looks like I was wrong and the models are perhaps constructed based on street view images and model data for other similar objects. Honestly, I feel like this makes the situation even more indefensible, because I get that collecting high-quality DEM is very expensive and so trying to use it comes with a lot of compromises. But if they're just substituting in models of "similar trees" like one person on Quora suggests it seems almost embarrassing for them that they're making the user experience more frustrating in order to deliver a 3D street-level experience that's still so bad as to be useless.
        8y ago
- modeless 8y ago
  The option is there. It's in the hamburger menu, labeled "Globe".
lantius 8y ago
You can also just use the "Globe" button in the side panel to toggle flat satellite imagery, while still keeping the smooth zooming.
- dudus 8y ago
  I particularly like the transition when zoomed out and toggling the Globe button.
  - gefh 8y ago
    Thanks, I delayed the release to squeeze that in :)
    - timoto 8y ago
      A breath of fresh air, being able to visualise our place in the world as it truly is. I think it's all fantastic, extremely fast, smooth, love the inertia on spin, the camera movement or simulation of is great, occlusion of objects nicely done. Would like to see an example with clustering. Is it possible to add elevation data ? Is it possible to access this mode in the API to use the webgl version ?
- LeoPanthera 8y ago
  For those like me who had trouble finding it, it's in the hamburger menu.
thadk 8y ago
The alternative to switch back is: https://maps.google.com/?force=webgl https://maps.google.com/?force=webgl
- hcnews 8y ago
  Thanks a lot. I was afraid that I was going to be stuck on the canvas mode. Sometimes, my curiosity gets the best of me :(
kevin_b_er 8y ago
Crumpled weird distorted trees and houses have to be one of the worst features of the newest google maps.
- nasredin 8y ago
  I still don't understand how could anyone find this defacing useful. Just give me the satellite or the Street View photos. TBH Bing's "Bird's Eye" view was far more useful that the shitty resolution (mandated by law BTW) satellite photos. Of course, Microsoft killed it :(
modeless 8y ago
This is actually slower in many cases. If you want to view 2D imagery and/or Mercator maps you can simply enable/disable Globe mode from the hamburger menu on the left.

dysoco 8y ago

That does seem to show older images though.

chch 8y ago
Agreed, the images do seem lower quality than they used to be. I was curious, though, and chose buildings at random around the Google office in NYC, just to do a side-by-side, and even the old pictures look better: https://i.imgur.com/0xEG4pb.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0xEG4pb.jpg https://i.imgur.com/bxwr3Ez.jpg https://i.imgur.com/bxwr3Ez.jpg
- qiqitori 8y ago
  I'm assuming left is old and right is new? This looks like aerial photography shot from a plane rather than satellite imagery, which seems like it would depend more on the quality(?) of the plane than the quality of the cameras.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago

Thank you! I'm actually quite annoyed that Google took away the visible option to disabled the 3D aerial view. It's such a resource hog, and my work's internet is often quite slow, and 3D has far more data to retrieve.

jensvdh 8y ago
People like you are the reason we need to support IE6
- jcrawfordor 8y ago
  I think it's worth replying to this to reinforce the point that the new mode has technical disadvantages compared to the old mode. Some of my projects involve a great deal of time spent looking at aerial imagery, sometimes for hours a day, and while Google Maps is not the panacea of aerial images it is one of the best single sources in terms of usability and quality of images. That said, prior to knowing this trick I was stuck with the effectively unmaintained Google Earth instead of the web view primarily because of the web maps insistence on the 3D rendering mode. The attempt to conform buildings and, most annoyingly, trees to the elevation data makes the imagery almost useless at close zoom levels, as all the actual detail disappears into clutter artificially introduced by the edges on the elevation data. It significantly reduces the amount of spatial resolution you can get out of areas where they have very good images. Earth still has tools that web view doesn't have, but often I'm not even that interested in measurements and just want to be able to carefully inspect the image. This doesn't seem to be something Google wants to support any more!
  - puzzle 8y ago
    It's not elevation data, it's reconstructed geometry.
    - jcrawfordor 8y ago
      My assumption had been that Google built these models using high-resolution LIDAR data, which is why I called it elevation... on a little more research though it looks like I was wrong and the models are perhaps constructed based on street view images and model data for other similar objects. Honestly, I feel like this makes the situation even more indefensible, because I get that collecting high-quality DEM is very expensive and so trying to use it comes with a lot of compromises. But if they're just substituting in models of "similar trees" like one person on Quora suggests it seems almost embarrassing for them that they're making the user experience more frustrating in order to deliver a 3D street-level experience that's still so bad as to be useless.
      - 8y ago
modeless 8y ago
The option is there. It's in the hamburger menu, labeled "Globe".

lantius 8y ago

You can also just use the "Globe" button in the side panel to toggle flat satellite imagery, while still keeping the smooth zooming.

dudus 8y ago
I particularly like the transition when zoomed out and toggling the Globe button.
- gefh 8y ago
  Thanks, I delayed the release to squeeze that in :)
  - timoto 8y ago
    A breath of fresh air, being able to visualise our place in the world as it truly is. I think it's all fantastic, extremely fast, smooth, love the inertia on spin, the camera movement or simulation of is great, occlusion of objects nicely done. Would like to see an example with clustering. Is it possible to add elevation data ? Is it possible to access this mode in the API to use the webgl version ?
LeoPanthera 8y ago
For those like me who had trouble finding it, it's in the hamburger menu.

thadk 8y ago

The alternative to switch back is: https://maps.google.com/?force=webgl https://maps.google.com/?force=webgl

hcnews 8y ago
Thanks a lot. I was afraid that I was going to be stuck on the canvas mode. Sometimes, my curiosity gets the best of me :(

kevin_b_er 8y ago

Crumpled weird distorted trees and houses have to be one of the worst features of the newest google maps.

nasredin 8y ago
I still don't understand how could anyone find this defacing useful. Just give me the satellite or the Street View photos. TBH Bing's "Bird's Eye" view was far more useful that the shitty resolution (mandated by law BTW) satellite photos. Of course, Microsoft killed it :(

modeless 8y ago

This is actually slower in many cases. If you want to view 2D imagery and/or Mercator maps you can simply enable/disable Globe mode from the hamburger menu on the left.