3 ms·
Yes! Apart from the standard "fastest" and "shortest" options and your suggestion, I'd also love: * Scenic routes (i.e. navigate as far away from buildings and
by leokennis 5y ago
Yes! Apart from the standard "fastest" and "shortest" options and your suggestion, I'd also love:
* Scenic routes (i.e. navigate as far away from buildings and as close as possible to water, forest)
* Least polluting routes (i.e. least amount of traffic lights, most time spent in the optimal "speed vs. pollution" of your car)
- tgb 5y agoGoogle Maps now defaults to that last options (or at least displays it by default, I'm not certain it's always chosen). See here [1] for example. I would be interested in seeing a 3rd party assess how accurate that metric is. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/06/google-maps-launches-eco-friendly-routing-in-the-u-s/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/06/google-maps-launches-eco-f...
- thepangolino 5y agoI'd like to hear more about how that id computed. In the example given in your link, the eco-friendly route takes longer and seems to have more tuns.
- leokennis 5y agoI’m not the expert but I think traveling 5 km but having to come to a full stop every 500 m and then having to accelerate will burn more fuel than driving 6 miles at a continuous pace of 50 km/h.