6 ms·

I’m an ex-Googler and I tried to fix cycling routing. I’m honestly sorry I wasn’t successful. We had a really nice solution but privacy considerations made it e

I’m an ex-Googler and I tried to fix cycling routing. I’m honestly sorry I wasn’t successful. We had a really nice solution but privacy considerations made it extremely difficult and limited. And then I and the other main driver both left Google so it withered and died I believe. I really hope someone else can fix it one day. This is a throwaway obviously since this basically 50% doxes me.

aix1 3y ago
> We had a really nice solution but privacy considerations made it extremely difficult and limited. Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more on those privacy considerations? (I guess what I'm struggling with is how cycling is different in this regard from other modalities.)
- ex-googlemaps 3y ago
  There are significantly more people using the other modes, especially in active navigation. For example, it’s well known that Google detects traffic through the movement of active users (there was the wagon of phones traffic jam experiment). Imagine trying to do something similar with the amount of cyclists actively using Google with the necessary privacy settings enabled on any given route. It would be noisy but possible, but then on top of that Google is extremely strict with privacy requirements (the exact opposite of what everyone on HN assumes). And once you add all of Google’s voluntary restrictions like anonymity of inferred data and such, it’s nearly impossible to gather any signal, even in major cities. Edit: By the way, the massive difference in potential users compared to all other modes is also why it’s so hard to prioritise work on cycling inside Google.
  - rob74 3y ago
    This sounds a bit American to me honestly - I would think that in Europe (and especially in Amsterdam) there would be enough cyclists to make the data usable. OTOH, they may not have the necessary privacy settings enabled (I think that's a minority among car users too). Of course it's also a vicious circle: if Google Maps is bad for cyclists, few cyclists will be using it, so you won't get the data you need to make it better. Additionally, I think the proportion of cyclists using any kind of navigation solution is lower than with car drivers...
    - matkoniecz 3y ago
      > Additionally, I think the proportion of cyclists using any kind of navigation solution is lower than with car drivers... In large part because cycling is fairly resistant to traffic jams
    - johannes1234321 3y ago
      How many cyclists use Google Maps to navigate? I guess (with no true facts) most cyclists know their primary routes and when going somewhere new have a rough idea and just check for the last part. Whereas car drivers often use navigation all the time to see traffic and alternatives, which are non-issues for cyclists. Thus even with many cyclists the information they collect is less.
      - Gravityloss 3y ago
        Biking through Keskuspuisto central park, even when born and raised and lived in Helsinki for my whole life, one still needs to consult the satellite map a lot. It's a maze. The signs are roughly indicative at best. So many places look exactly the same you forget the exact crossings during the winter. You often can't see far because it's a forest.
      - xigoi 3y ago
        You think Google is watching your location only when you're using Google Maps?
        ex-googlemaps 3y ago
        The widespread assumption that Google collects all data all the time and uses it for everything is ridiculous. There’s a labyrinth of explicit user agreements, all of which are strictly enforced, and then there are further layers of voluntary restrictions on top of that. Yes, Google might collect location data even when you’re not using Maps (there are a lot of passionate, dedicated Timeline users), but you have to have that enabled, and even then the data can only be used in certain ways.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Is it that there are more cars? Because I live in Amsterdam, and there's definitely more bikes than cars here, yet bicycle support still sucks. Although it's possible few cyclists use Google Maps because a) it's bad, b) they don't need to, and c) you need a special clip to use your smartphone live on your bike (though that's also true for cars).
    - scatters 3y ago
      Most modern cars have a center console with Android Auto, so you just plug in your phone to USB and it takes over navigation, communication and entertainment.
      - mcv 3y ago
        I guess my car isn't that modern. Our car nav is okayish, but the ui is crap and the maps are outdated.
  - MayeulC 3y ago
    I don't think it's necessary to jump right to data collection, the routing algorithms and incomplete maps are the issue. Of course, you'd need additional data about bike lanes, etc (which could come from crowdsourced data? Maybe that's what you are alluding to?). As it is, offline routers such as Brouter and OSMAnd do a much better job, and it's pretty easy to convince other cyclists to use them. Traffic jams are almost never an issue when biking - heavy car or bike traffic can slow you down, but by that point you have at least the same density as car traffic jams for data collection...
  - culi 3y ago
    What exactly makes the challenge of cycle so much harder than walking? Also is there really 0 ways you could use pedestrian mode data for biking directions? Even if marginally or to confirm hypotheses mostly based on cycling data Lastly, is there anything stopping you from contributing potential innovations to open source alternatives?
    - chefandy 3y ago
      In most densely populated areas near where I live in southern New England, bikes are vehicles that, in most cases, must operate on the roadway. I'd get a ticket for riding a bike across a pedestrian bridge or down an urban sidewalk.
pja 3y ago
Google maps is still terrible for pedestrian / cycling use. OSM is much, much better but I guess Google refuses to pull OSM data because it would require them to open up their own maps.
- ex-googlemaps 3y ago
  For cycling, yeah, that’s why I said I’m very sorry I wasn’t successful. For pedestrian, I’d disagree. At least in places I go, I find Google’s walking directions to be top notch.
  - mbakke 3y ago
    For hiking OSM blows Google out of the water. I'm surprised how detailed OSM is with random forest trails and shortcuts, resting spots, viewpoints, etc. The main thing I use Google Maps for is searching for stores etc in cities. I hope such information becomes easier to contribute to OSM. Perhaps a Pokémon Go style game for map updates could work? StreetComplete[0] is good, but the rewards are kind of boring. 0 https://streetcomplete.app/ https://streetcomplete.app/
    - ihatehn 3y ago
      Recall that Google as a company doesn't care about making people's lives easier and better, they care about inserting themselves as a middleman in aspects of your daily life and then trying to sell ads about it. They might invent a "talk to your grandma anytime" app and tell you it's because they love your sweet grandma, but the only things that will get attention and dev work are the bits that figure out how to sell you more stuff.
  - ryukoposting 3y ago
    If you're a pedestrian in a city and you're walking between two locations with mailing addresses, then yes, Google is great. For anything outside of those boundaries, OSM is head and shoulders above Google Maps. GMaps is basically unusable for hikers and outdoorsmen because of the asinine offline UX and lack of topo data. I've also seen it make some outright unsafe routes when walking around suburbs and smaller towns.
KnackeredHues 3y ago
I’ve been wondering why doesn’t google use its own elevation and traffic data? There are no privacy issues with the data they already make publicly available. Prioritizing flatter and more pleasant routes over shorter ones couldn’t be more complicated than adjusting a few variables, could it?
latchkey 3y ago
Two days ago, thanks to cycle routing, I accidentally discovered a bike path (with some dirt even!) that ran parallel to a more busy car road that I have been riding for 35 years now. I had no idea it existed. Not all seems lost.
- speleding 3y ago
  Also, in Amsterdam it works pretty well if you set Google Maps to "walking" and then divide all time estimates by 3.

aix1 3y ago

> We had a really nice solution but privacy considerations made it extremely difficult and limited. Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more on those privacy considerations? (I guess what I'm struggling with is how cycling is different in this regard from other modalities.)

ex-googlemaps 3y ago
There are significantly more people using the other modes, especially in active navigation. For example, it’s well known that Google detects traffic through the movement of active users (there was the wagon of phones traffic jam experiment). Imagine trying to do something similar with the amount of cyclists actively using Google with the necessary privacy settings enabled on any given route. It would be noisy but possible, but then on top of that Google is extremely strict with privacy requirements (the exact opposite of what everyone on HN assumes). And once you add all of Google’s voluntary restrictions like anonymity of inferred data and such, it’s nearly impossible to gather any signal, even in major cities. Edit: By the way, the massive difference in potential users compared to all other modes is also why it’s so hard to prioritise work on cycling inside Google.
- rob74 3y ago
  This sounds a bit American to me honestly - I would think that in Europe (and especially in Amsterdam) there would be enough cyclists to make the data usable. OTOH, they may not have the necessary privacy settings enabled (I think that's a minority among car users too). Of course it's also a vicious circle: if Google Maps is bad for cyclists, few cyclists will be using it, so you won't get the data you need to make it better. Additionally, I think the proportion of cyclists using any kind of navigation solution is lower than with car drivers...
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    > Additionally, I think the proportion of cyclists using any kind of navigation solution is lower than with car drivers... In large part because cycling is fairly resistant to traffic jams
  - johannes1234321 3y ago
    How many cyclists use Google Maps to navigate? I guess (with no true facts) most cyclists know their primary routes and when going somewhere new have a rough idea and just check for the last part. Whereas car drivers often use navigation all the time to see traffic and alternatives, which are non-issues for cyclists. Thus even with many cyclists the information they collect is less.
    - Gravityloss 3y ago
      Biking through Keskuspuisto central park, even when born and raised and lived in Helsinki for my whole life, one still needs to consult the satellite map a lot. It's a maze. The signs are roughly indicative at best. So many places look exactly the same you forget the exact crossings during the winter. You often can't see far because it's a forest.
    - xigoi 3y ago
      You think Google is watching your location only when you're using Google Maps?
      - ex-googlemaps 3y ago
        The widespread assumption that Google collects all data all the time and uses it for everything is ridiculous. There’s a labyrinth of explicit user agreements, all of which are strictly enforced, and then there are further layers of voluntary restrictions on top of that. Yes, Google might collect location data even when you’re not using Maps (there are a lot of passionate, dedicated Timeline users), but you have to have that enabled, and even then the data can only be used in certain ways.
- mcv 3y ago
  Is it that there are more cars? Because I live in Amsterdam, and there's definitely more bikes than cars here, yet bicycle support still sucks. Although it's possible few cyclists use Google Maps because a) it's bad, b) they don't need to, and c) you need a special clip to use your smartphone live on your bike (though that's also true for cars).
  - scatters 3y ago
    Most modern cars have a center console with Android Auto, so you just plug in your phone to USB and it takes over navigation, communication and entertainment.
    - mcv 3y ago
      I guess my car isn't that modern. Our car nav is okayish, but the ui is crap and the maps are outdated.
- MayeulC 3y ago
  I don't think it's necessary to jump right to data collection, the routing algorithms and incomplete maps are the issue. Of course, you'd need additional data about bike lanes, etc (which could come from crowdsourced data? Maybe that's what you are alluding to?). As it is, offline routers such as Brouter and OSMAnd do a much better job, and it's pretty easy to convince other cyclists to use them. Traffic jams are almost never an issue when biking - heavy car or bike traffic can slow you down, but by that point you have at least the same density as car traffic jams for data collection...
- culi 3y ago
  What exactly makes the challenge of cycle so much harder than walking? Also is there really 0 ways you could use pedestrian mode data for biking directions? Even if marginally or to confirm hypotheses mostly based on cycling data Lastly, is there anything stopping you from contributing potential innovations to open source alternatives?
  - chefandy 3y ago
    In most densely populated areas near where I live in southern New England, bikes are vehicles that, in most cases, must operate on the roadway. I'd get a ticket for riding a bike across a pedestrian bridge or down an urban sidewalk.

pja 3y ago

Google maps is still terrible for pedestrian / cycling use. OSM is much, much better but I guess Google refuses to pull OSM data because it would require them to open up their own maps.

ex-googlemaps 3y ago
For cycling, yeah, that’s why I said I’m very sorry I wasn’t successful. For pedestrian, I’d disagree. At least in places I go, I find Google’s walking directions to be top notch.
- mbakke 3y ago
  For hiking OSM blows Google out of the water. I'm surprised how detailed OSM is with random forest trails and shortcuts, resting spots, viewpoints, etc. The main thing I use Google Maps for is searching for stores etc in cities. I hope such information becomes easier to contribute to OSM. Perhaps a Pokémon Go style game for map updates could work? StreetComplete[0] is good, but the rewards are kind of boring. 0 https://streetcomplete.app/ https://streetcomplete.app/
  - ihatehn 3y ago
    Recall that Google as a company doesn't care about making people's lives easier and better, they care about inserting themselves as a middleman in aspects of your daily life and then trying to sell ads about it. They might invent a "talk to your grandma anytime" app and tell you it's because they love your sweet grandma, but the only things that will get attention and dev work are the bits that figure out how to sell you more stuff.
- ryukoposting 3y ago
  If you're a pedestrian in a city and you're walking between two locations with mailing addresses, then yes, Google is great. For anything outside of those boundaries, OSM is head and shoulders above Google Maps. GMaps is basically unusable for hikers and outdoorsmen because of the asinine offline UX and lack of topo data. I've also seen it make some outright unsafe routes when walking around suburbs and smaller towns.

KnackeredHues 3y ago

I’ve been wondering why doesn’t google use its own elevation and traffic data? There are no privacy issues with the data they already make publicly available. Prioritizing flatter and more pleasant routes over shorter ones couldn’t be more complicated than adjusting a few variables, could it?

latchkey 3y ago

Two days ago, thanks to cycle routing, I accidentally discovered a bike path (with some dirt even!) that ran parallel to a more busy car road that I have been riding for 35 years now. I had no idea it existed. Not all seems lost.

speleding 3y ago
Also, in Amsterdam it works pretty well if you set Google Maps to "walking" and then divide all time estimates by 3.