3 ms·

They might have been useless to you, but I'd personally err on the side of enabling it by default in the affected areas. I've relied on it in the past for updat

They might have been useless to you, but I'd personally err on the side of enabling it by default in the affected areas. I've relied on it in the past for updated info about available escape routes during wildfire season. There's merit in adding a toggle, but map applications (including g maps) are already very settings-heavy. I'm sure some team is constantly trying to balance against configuration overload.

mulmen 5y ago
“Functions at the most basic level” seems like a low bar for making a feature opt-out.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  My bar is that safety-relevant information should probably be enabled by default. Wildfire spread certainly qualifies. Here's two examples: During the 2020 fire season Google maps was helpful in tracking the fire spread until we eventually received evac orders via notification. Very useful. Contrast that with the experience before they had a well-developed crisis program. I had the misfortune to be in Nice for Bastille Day 2016. Google didn't promptly warn about the terrorist attack and I had to find out from FB / friends. There was a long period of utter confusion because I had personally disabled FB notifications and no one understood the situation or extent of danger.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > I was traveling across Colorado last summer and the persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless wildfire alerts made us switch to Apple maps In a safety-critical situation if the alerts are "persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless" are they really beneficial?
    - mike_d 5y ago
      > if the alerts are "persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless" are they really beneficial? Some people say the same thing about Amber Alerts, they are "annoying and useless" because it isn't their child missing.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        How is sending out an inaccurate amber alert beneficial to any actual missing child or their parents? How is doing so frequently any better?
        mike_d 5y ago
        The top level comment provided a single unsubstantiated view of the wildfire data being inaccurate. As I mentioned up-thread, I was tracking a wildfire in Washington State and was able to determine by monitoring fire radios and watching cameras that the data was pretty accurate.
        mulmen 5y ago
        Your claim is no more substantial. The claim upthread is about Colorado, not Washington.
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      As I clarified in the original response, while they might have been "persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant and useless" to the OP, I'd personally err on the side of annoying people vs not providing important information to people who need it.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        How is providing inaccurate information acceptable in a safety-critical situation? What happens if Google says one valley is impassable due to fire and the one next to it is not but their data is a few hours old and the only way out is the valley they say is on fire? Task saturation is a thing. If I am trying to navigate an emergency situation I do not need to be inundated with useless information. I need to focus on what matters, like navigating potentially hazardous conditions. Conditions that Google may well have gotten me in to!
        AlotOfReading 5y ago
        As discussed in the original link, they're looking at the data straight from the satellite and continually monitoring their accuracy compared to other data sources. Mitigating incorrect information was explicitly one of the design considerations and a launch requirement. Can you elaborate on specifically what you're critiquing here besides the unreasonable expectation to provide perfect information?
        mulmen 5y ago
        The claim upthread was that this data was inaccurate in Colorado to the point that it was not useful.
exabrial 5y ago
First: As I stated above, the data was not accurate. At all. These fires had moved miles before Google caught up days later. Second: Google maps gave delayed, conflicting, or insufficient data on the closures of roads. The ONLY correct, complete, and accurate source should be the local government and counties managing the operations. By presenting itself as an authoritative source of information, they likely put more people in danger, or hampered efforts by local governments to manage road traffic for firefighter crews. Google repeatedly tried to send us down roads that we knew were closed or could put is in danger if a traffic jam formed. It then taunted you with an incessant, repeated, useless warning that "Cameron Peaks wildfire may delay your travel" that could not be disabled. I wouldn't exactly be touting the poorly polished turd pile that this project was. The "willingness to help" was certainly there, but explicit consent and information feeds from local governments managing the emergencies, they only stand as a distraction and it would be best if they did nothing.

mulmen 5y ago

“Functions at the most basic level” seems like a low bar for making a feature opt-out.

AlotOfReading 5y ago
My bar is that safety-relevant information should probably be enabled by default. Wildfire spread certainly qualifies. Here's two examples: During the 2020 fire season Google maps was helpful in tracking the fire spread until we eventually received evac orders via notification. Very useful. Contrast that with the experience before they had a well-developed crisis program. I had the misfortune to be in Nice for Bastille Day 2016. Google didn't promptly warn about the terrorist attack and I had to find out from FB / friends. There was a long period of utter confusion because I had personally disabled FB notifications and no one understood the situation or extent of danger.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > I was traveling across Colorado last summer and the persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless wildfire alerts made us switch to Apple maps In a safety-critical situation if the alerts are "persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless" are they really beneficial?
  - mike_d 5y ago
    > if the alerts are "persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless" are they really beneficial? Some people say the same thing about Amber Alerts, they are "annoying and useless" because it isn't their child missing.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      How is sending out an inaccurate amber alert beneficial to any actual missing child or their parents? How is doing so frequently any better?
      - mike_d 5y ago
        The top level comment provided a single unsubstantiated view of the wildfire data being inaccurate. As I mentioned up-thread, I was tracking a wildfire in Washington State and was able to determine by monitoring fire radios and watching cameras that the data was pretty accurate.
        mulmen 5y ago
        Your claim is no more substantial. The claim upthread is about Colorado, not Washington.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    As I clarified in the original response, while they might have been "persistent, annoying, inaccurate, irrelevant and useless" to the OP, I'd personally err on the side of annoying people vs not providing important information to people who need it.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      How is providing inaccurate information acceptable in a safety-critical situation? What happens if Google says one valley is impassable due to fire and the one next to it is not but their data is a few hours old and the only way out is the valley they say is on fire? Task saturation is a thing. If I am trying to navigate an emergency situation I do not need to be inundated with useless information. I need to focus on what matters, like navigating potentially hazardous conditions. Conditions that Google may well have gotten me in to!
      - AlotOfReading 5y ago
        As discussed in the original link, they're looking at the data straight from the satellite and continually monitoring their accuracy compared to other data sources. Mitigating incorrect information was explicitly one of the design considerations and a launch requirement. Can you elaborate on specifically what you're critiquing here besides the unreasonable expectation to provide perfect information?
        mulmen 5y ago
        The claim upthread was that this data was inaccurate in Colorado to the point that it was not useful.

exabrial 5y ago

First: As I stated above, the data was not accurate. At all. These fires had moved miles before Google caught up days later. Second: Google maps gave delayed, conflicting, or insufficient data on the closures of roads. The ONLY correct, complete, and accurate source should be the local government and counties managing the operations. By presenting itself as an authoritative source of information, they likely put more people in danger, or hampered efforts by local governments to manage road traffic for firefighter crews. Google repeatedly tried to send us down roads that we knew were closed or could put is in danger if a traffic jam formed. It then taunted you with an incessant, repeated, useless warning that "Cameron Peaks wildfire may delay your travel" that could not be disabled. I wouldn't exactly be touting the poorly polished turd pile that this project was. The "willingness to help" was certainly there, but explicit consent and information feeds from local governments managing the emergencies, they only stand as a distraction and it would be best if they did nothing.