5 ms·

I think the author has a genuine passion for maps, and finds the vegetation to be a great feature.

by max76 8y ago

cronix 8y ago
Except that the new map makes it seem as though California is some lush, green, tropical land. I think the green is way over-emphasized on the new map compared to the old, which is a bit more realistic looking to my eyes.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Have you seen California in satellite view? It's mostly green.
  - kaikai 8y ago
    In the spring maybe. For much of the year it's brown because it's desert, nonnative grassland, or city. Big chunks are forest, especially in the north, but brown is still dominant.
    - kristofferR 8y ago
      Sure, but brown areas on the map marks different types of areas, so they obviously can't use brown. Imagine how much of the world would look in the winter, it would just be a completely white map. The colors of the map obviously can't be based on the season.
- rconti 8y ago
  The arbitrary transition from green to brown on the old maps, when in reality, there is no such transition, is the real problem. When navigating by foot those shapes SHOULD be accurate; I care less about the legal boundaries of the exact park and more about what i'm seeing as I walk around.
  - ariwilson 8y ago
    Why do you care that the map represents the green parts accurately? How does that enhance your walking experience? IMO 99% of the time people use maps to get to destinations, so maps should be focused on destinations, not shapes (insofar as the shapes don't prevent you from getting to your destination).
    - theoh 8y ago
      The shape of e.g. a wooded area can be important for orientation when on foot. But really, maps are nothing but shapes (streets, waterways, coastlines) that constrain navigation on the ground, so it's difficult to make sense of your proposed focus on destinations to the exclusion of shapes.
      - Robin_Message 8y ago
        My scout leader always taught me "never navigate by woods". The reason? It doesn't take long to chop down a forest and invalidate your assumptions. I remember taking part in 2-day team orienteering competition. We had walked very accurately on a bearing to where the checkpoint should be, but it wasn't there. My friend had taken the bearing on the corner of a wooded area. Looking more closely at the wooded area, we could see a large area of tree stumps next to it... (We reorientated ourselves, found the checkpoint, and came second in the competition.)
  - TylerE 8y ago
    If you're navigating on foot why aren't you using a topo map?
floatrock 8y ago
But that's what I don't like about the apple map. Check out the image where he says: > Regardless of how Apple is creating all of its buildings and other shapes, Apple is filling its map with so many of them that Google now looks empty in comparison: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff63f0e4b0bafce6932642/t/5bdb46f9898583b78153b620/1541097217246/1-46+Carmel+-+Google.gif?format=1500w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff63f0e4b0bafce6932... Yeah, the google view has a lot less green, but it's really a different kind of green -- it shows me where there's a public park I might visit. Apple's green is showing vegetation, but finding that regional park gets lost in the noise. If I wanted to find a place to visit, Google is the superior layout. If I want to get a sense of vegetation, I would just turn on satellite view!
- puzzle 8y ago
  Google does have vegetation and desert data, but you can see that it starts to fade around zoom level 5 in the US (at which you can only see a number of entire states and the names of major cities). If you go somewhere else on the planet, e.g. along the Amazon river, you see that the vegetation data reappears, only to start fading again at zoom level 11 or so. It's too irregular and following satellite imagery too closely to have been drawn from human sources such as parcel data. It must have been built from imagery. So it looks like it's a deliberate choice on Google's part to only use human-derived features such as a park's outline at most zoom levels, on most of the inhabited surface of the planet.
  - londons_explore 8y ago
    Describing zoom levels as numbers isn't common... Do you work for a mapping provider?
    - puzzle 8y ago
      I used to work for Google, but not on maps. You can see the zoom level for yourself in the URL. Use the scrollwheel or its trackpad equivalent and the Z parameter in the address bar will change. That's where I got the numbers, not any special knowledge.

I think the author has a genuine passion for maps, and finds the vegetation to be a great feature.

by max76 8y ago

I think the author has a genuine passion for maps, and finds the vegetation to be a great feature.

Except that the new map makes it seem as though California is some lush, green, tropical land. I think the green is way over-emphasized on the new map compared to the old, which is a bit more realistic looking to my eyes.

saagarjha 8y ago
Have you seen California in satellite view? It's mostly green.
- kaikai 8y ago
  In the spring maybe. For much of the year it's brown because it's desert, nonnative grassland, or city. Big chunks are forest, especially in the north, but brown is still dominant.
  - kristofferR 8y ago
    Sure, but brown areas on the map marks different types of areas, so they obviously can't use brown. Imagine how much of the world would look in the winter, it would just be a completely white map. The colors of the map obviously can't be based on the season.
rconti 8y ago
The arbitrary transition from green to brown on the old maps, when in reality, there is no such transition, is the real problem. When navigating by foot those shapes SHOULD be accurate; I care less about the legal boundaries of the exact park and more about what i'm seeing as I walk around.
- ariwilson 8y ago
  Why do you care that the map represents the green parts accurately? How does that enhance your walking experience? IMO 99% of the time people use maps to get to destinations, so maps should be focused on destinations, not shapes (insofar as the shapes don't prevent you from getting to your destination).
  - theoh 8y ago
    The shape of e.g. a wooded area can be important for orientation when on foot. But really, maps are nothing but shapes (streets, waterways, coastlines) that constrain navigation on the ground, so it's difficult to make sense of your proposed focus on destinations to the exclusion of shapes.
    - Robin_Message 8y ago
      My scout leader always taught me "never navigate by woods". The reason? It doesn't take long to chop down a forest and invalidate your assumptions. I remember taking part in 2-day team orienteering competition. We had walked very accurately on a bearing to where the checkpoint should be, but it wasn't there. My friend had taken the bearing on the corner of a wooded area. Looking more closely at the wooded area, we could see a large area of tree stumps next to it... (We reorientated ourselves, found the checkpoint, and came second in the competition.)
- TylerE 8y ago
  If you're navigating on foot why aren't you using a topo map?

floatrock 8y ago

But that's what I don't like about the apple map. Check out the image where he says: > Regardless of how Apple is creating all of its buildings and other shapes, Apple is filling its map with so many of them that Google now looks empty in comparison: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff63f0e4b0bafce6932642/t/5bdb46f9898583b78153b620/1541097217246/1-46+Carmel+-+Google.gif?format=1500w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff63f0e4b0bafce6932... Yeah, the google view has a lot less green, but it's really a different kind of green -- it shows me where there's a public park I might visit. Apple's green is showing vegetation, but finding that regional park gets lost in the noise. If I wanted to find a place to visit, Google is the superior layout. If I want to get a sense of vegetation, I would just turn on satellite view!

puzzle 8y ago
Google does have vegetation and desert data, but you can see that it starts to fade around zoom level 5 in the US (at which you can only see a number of entire states and the names of major cities). If you go somewhere else on the planet, e.g. along the Amazon river, you see that the vegetation data reappears, only to start fading again at zoom level 11 or so. It's too irregular and following satellite imagery too closely to have been drawn from human sources such as parcel data. It must have been built from imagery. So it looks like it's a deliberate choice on Google's part to only use human-derived features such as a park's outline at most zoom levels, on most of the inhabited surface of the planet.
- londons_explore 8y ago
  Describing zoom levels as numbers isn't common... Do you work for a mapping provider?
  - puzzle 8y ago
    I used to work for Google, but not on maps. You can see the zoom level for yourself in the URL. Use the scrollwheel or its trackpad equivalent and the Z parameter in the address bar will change. That's where I got the numbers, not any special knowledge.