3 ms·

Even if it can't it still can be incredibly valuable in a lot of climates where it operates well most of the time(ie most of California at this point). Most p

Even if it can't it still can be incredibly valuable in a lot of climates where it operates well most of the time(ie most of California at this point). Most people don't travel very far and where they do is probably well mapped. Google could solve a small percentage of the problem and still win.

justincormack 12y ago
It makes the cars worth less, if people were going to purchase rather than rent them, if they cannot be used for all journeys. If they are going to be rental only it matters less.
amirmc 12y ago
From the source: "Data from multiple passes by a special sensor vehicle must later be pored over, meter by meter, by both computers and humans. It’s vastly more effort than what’s needed for Google Maps." In other words, the mapping required is very specific and doesn't exist. Current maps don't help.
- asuffield 12y ago
  I took a couple of other things away from that: "We know how to make these maps, we just haven't made them yet" "We can still see ways to improve this process"
  - amirmc 12y ago
    I think the goal would be not to need those special maps at all. (In the long run). In any case, no-one is disputing that driverless cars are coming. Just reminding the over-zealous that there are real obstacles to overcome.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      Huh? In the long run, having the maps is trivially easy. Roads aren't naturally occurring. If they can be helpful (which seems certain, since human navigators also rely heavily on having the area they're driving through memorized), why wouldn't we use them?
      - DanBC 12y ago
        The specialised maps are far too noisy for human navigators to use.
        thaumasiotes 12y ago
        So? I'm just pointing out that we don't expect anyone to navigate without maps -- there's no reason for automated cars to be different. amirmc said "the goal would be not to need those special maps at all", but that's contrary to navigation as practiced since the dawn of time. Given the ease of creating the maps, it makes infinitely more sense to have maps and better navigation than no maps and worse navigation.

justincormack 12y ago

It makes the cars worth less, if people were going to purchase rather than rent them, if they cannot be used for all journeys. If they are going to be rental only it matters less.

amirmc 12y ago

From the source: "Data from multiple passes by a special sensor vehicle must later be pored over, meter by meter, by both computers and humans. It’s vastly more effort than what’s needed for Google Maps." In other words, the mapping required is very specific and doesn't exist. Current maps don't help.

asuffield 12y ago
I took a couple of other things away from that: "We know how to make these maps, we just haven't made them yet" "We can still see ways to improve this process"
- amirmc 12y ago
  I think the goal would be not to need those special maps at all. (In the long run). In any case, no-one is disputing that driverless cars are coming. Just reminding the over-zealous that there are real obstacles to overcome.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    Huh? In the long run, having the maps is trivially easy. Roads aren't naturally occurring. If they can be helpful (which seems certain, since human navigators also rely heavily on having the area they're driving through memorized), why wouldn't we use them?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      The specialised maps are far too noisy for human navigators to use.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        So? I'm just pointing out that we don't expect anyone to navigate without maps -- there's no reason for automated cars to be different. amirmc said "the goal would be not to need those special maps at all", but that's contrary to navigation as practiced since the dawn of time. Given the ease of creating the maps, it makes infinitely more sense to have maps and better navigation than no maps and worse navigation.