FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions

[Arlen Holder]

I use my mobile device with GPS to do routing, as do almost all of you, I'm
sure, so, I just want to let you know that Google is VERY RESPONSIVE to
your requests to change their routing algorithms.

As reported today in a.c.o.w-10, in my case, it's certain that my report
was the *only* trigger, where they fixed the routing problem in less than 2
months elapsed time (with a few clarification questions from the Google Map
"Volunteer" sprinkled in between).

Here are screenshots of the interaction with Google Maps routing:
1. July 2016: My request for Google to change the routing on their maps
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_map1.jpg>
2. Sept 2016: Google says they made the changes I requested
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_map2.jpg>

This proves that Google, at least for Google Maps, fixes their routing
errors in about a month and a half, based on a single request.

Those like nospam are on record repeatedly saying that's an inefficient
mechanism, but they just guess at everything, so, by way of contrast, just
guessing is far more efficient than actually accomplishing something
meaningful.

My point to this ng is that the feedback link at the bottom right of every
Google Map (AFAIK), despite nospam's complaints to the contrary, does seem
to be a highly efficient way to improve the map routing directions.

For the benefit of everyone, I encourage you to share your experiences with
your attempts to fix the maps (either Google, Nav-Tech, OSM, or Apple,
etc., most of which I have experience with getting fixed also) which will
encourage others to fix them for the benefit of everyone.

[nospam]

In article <ph0qgb$f8n$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

> I use my mobile device with GPS to do routing, as do almost all of you, I'm
> sure, so, I just want to let you know that Google is VERY RESPONSIVE to
> your requests to change their routing algorithms.
>
> As reported today in a.c.o.w-10, in my case, it's certain that my report
> was the *only* trigger, where they fixed the routing problem in less than 2
> months elapsed time (with a few clarification questions from the Google Map
> "Volunteer" sprinkled in between).
>
> Here are screenshots of the interaction with Google Maps routing:
> 1. July 2016: My request for Google to change the routing on their maps
> <http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_map1.jpg>
> 2. Sept 2016: Google says they made the changes I requested
> <http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_map2.jpg>
>
> This proves that Google, at least for Google Maps, fixes their routing
> errors in about a month and a half, based on a single request.

it doesn't prove anything.

you have *no* way to know if anyone else reported anything, what they
reported if they did, or if google determined a problem on their own.

> Those like nospam are on record repeatedly saying that's an inefficient
> mechanism, but they just guess at everything, so, by way of contrast, just
> guessing is far more efficient than actually accomplishing something
> meaningful.
>
> My point to this ng is that the feedback link at the bottom right of every
> Google Map (AFAIK), despite nospam's complaints to the contrary, does seem
> to be a highly efficient way to improve the map routing directions.

you are lying.

i said the link was the best way and that it's generally very quick.
they do need to verify it, however.

you claimed to have been on the phone with google for many hours to
report a single map error.


In article <pgp0dl$rp8$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:
> I think I understand the sarcasm, where, I must say, I had to get Google to
> fix a private path on their maps, where I spent hours calling them up all
> to no avail - but - I finally found a way where there are "Google
> Volunteers" who actually do work with Google to fix maps (e.g., to not
> route on private reads, where where I live, all the roads are private).

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:13:44 -0400, nospam wrote:

> it doesn't prove anything.

Trolls like you, nospam, who can't accomplish anything, always denigrate
the proven successes of others (Jolly Roger being an expert at that!).

> you have *no* way to know if anyone else reported anything, what they
> reported if they did, or if google determined a problem on their own.

Hehheh ... remember you denigrated our community signage effort, where I
was in charge of coming up with the most efficient process for having a
score of landowners modify signs so that all along this route, the signage
was consistent and personalized to the property.

You remember that one, now don't you nospam?

You don't know that I obfuscated what the signs actually said (for privacy
reasons), but you repeatedly came up with a completely unworkable solution
to that problem set also - all the while saying that the most efficient
process was "inefficient" (simply because you can't comprehend success).

You are amazingly consistent, nospam, at denigrating success even as you,
yourself, don't seem to have been successful at anything (AFAICT).

HINT: You just guess. You think "just guessing" is efficient.
And it is, if you guess right.

But, as we already showed many times, your "just guessing" record is about
as accurate as that of the monkey.

> you are lying.

Hehhehheh ... the reason I know trolls like you, nospam, just like trolls
like Frank Slootweg, still have a morsel of decency left is that the truth
of what you post offends you.

It's actually good that you still have a shred of decency left, nospam.

> i said the link was the best way and that it's generally very quick.
> they do need to verify it, however.

Clearly I proved that Google fixed the routing error in about 1.5 months
(less actually, but I want to obfuscate the dates a bit for privacy).

You will scream that I have no way of knowing if a billion other people
didn't report the same thing, but I know the score of people who are
affected as this was a community project where I was not only assigned the
task of coming up with an efficient signage process (which you denigrated
sans offering any valid alternatives) - but I was also the one tasked with
solving the Google routing errors.

Your implied claim is ridiculous given that the chance of a third party
(i.e., not an owner of the property being routed across) asking Google to
stop routing across someone elses' property, doesn't meet the most basic of
probabilistic logic.

The score of owners tasked me with solving that problem, which I solved in
1.5 months elapsed time.

> you claimed to have been on the phone with google for many hours to
> report a single map error.

Everything you say proves you just make this shit up as you go along.

Bearing mind I live very close to Google HQ, I said many times that I
"tried" to talk to someone at Google on the phone (or in person), since
that's how I got all the county GIS maps fixed, for example, just as I
talked to the local police and sheriff to get their electronic maps fixed,
and just as I talked to the state and county to get their signs fixed, etc.

But I found out from that experience that it's patently impossible to talk
to a human at Google regarding fixing their maps. (Bear in mind I almost
never fail so failing at getting someone on the phone to fix the map at
Google is a big deal.)

HINT: Since you almost always fail (you "just give up"), failing at
something isn't at all a big deal to you (or especially to the other trolls
like Jolly Roger, Lewis, Snit, etc.).

I certainly talked to people at Google who answered the phone, but they all
said the same thing - which is that the *only* way to get a map-routing
problem fixed (at that time, two years ago) was to use the "trusted
volunteer" system that I used based on their feedback.

This week, I filed another request, which was even simpler in that all you
need to do now, under their (apparently new) system is hit the "feedback"
button on the bottom of every map view.

That you think the process of exploration is "inefficient" is simply
because you *always just guess* at everything - so of course you know
everything a priori (hehhehheh... ).

Except you're almost always wrong, as you were in last week's PDF question,
for example, and in the signs question, and in the WiFi questions, etc.

You're almost always wrong, nospam, because you "just guess".
Clearly, you feel "just guessing" is more efficient than researching the
correct answer.

It's a trail all you mindless trolls have, where Jolly Roger has it in
spades, where, for example he constantly claims that his infinite elapsed
time for him to FAIL at accomplishing something on iOS is more efficient
than my, say, three hours of actual time over an elapsed period of, say, a
week, to actually SOLVE a problem.

You inveterate trolls, nopsam and Jolly Roger, have zero successes to
report, and you always *just guess*, so all you "can" do, is troll.

[sms]

On 6/27/2018 1:02 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> I use my mobile device with GPS to do routing, as do almost all of you, I'm
> sure, so, I just want to let you know that Google is VERY RESPONSIVE to
> your requests to change their routing algorithms.

I have sent them corrections and they responded within a couple of days.

Unfortunately one problem I reported they said that there was no way
that they could fix the issue. It was at an intersection where bicycles
can go straight across, but motor vehicles cannot. We have quite a few
of these intersections in my city.

[sms]

On 6/27/2018 1:02 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I use my mobile device with GPS to do routing, as do almost all of you, I'm
> sure, so, I just want to let you know that Google is VERY RESPONSIVE to
> your requests to change their routing algorithms.

I received three e-mails, one to acknowledge receipt of the report, one
to acknowledge that the error was real, and one to inform me when the
error was corrected.

Not sure if anyone else reported the same issue, I am sure that very few
people take the time to report errors and omissions.

I reported it on 4/20 and it was fixed on 6/10. So you're correct, about
1.5 months.

--------------------------------
Hi Steven,

Thanks for taking the time to report a problem with Google Maps. We'll
send you an update once your report has been reviewed to let you know
the resolution.

We have created ID: 6762-9F7F-5DD0-AC46 to track this problem.

Report history
Problem ID: 6762-9F7F-5DD0-AC46

Your report: Mary Avenue Bicycle Bridge over 280 in Cupertino, CA is not
showing up in routes.
--
Thanks for your help,
The Google Maps team
--------------------------------
Hi Steven,

Your Google Maps problem report has been reviewed, and you were right!
We'll update the map soon and email you when you can see the change.

Report history
Problem ID: 6762-9F7F-5DD0-AC46

Your report: Mary Avenue Bicycle Bridge over 280 in Cupertino, CA is not
showing up in routes.
--
Thanks for your help,
The Google Maps team
--------------------------------
Hi Steven,

Google Maps has been updated to correct the problem you reported. You
can see the update here, and if you still see a problem, please tell us
more about the issue: Link to view and/or reopen issue

Report history
Problem ID: 6762-9F7F-5DD0-AC46

Your report: Mary Avenue Bicycle Bridge over 280 in Cupertino, CA is not
showing up in routes.
--
Thanks for your help,
The Google Maps team

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:19:09 -0700, sms wrote:

> I reported it on 4/20 and it was fixed on 6/10. So you're correct, about
> 1.5 months.

Thanks sms for adding your experience since we all learn from each other!

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:12:44 -0700, sms wrote:

> I have sent them corrections and they responded within a couple of days.

On a related note, Apple rolled out this week "first party" maps.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/29/apple-taking-maps-to-the-next-level-in-ios-12

They only have the SF Bay Area for now, but they plan on building
first-party maps for the country.

"Apple Maps vans are equipped with GPS, eight cameras, and four LiDAR
sensors, as well as a device attached to a rear wheel that ensures proper
recording of distance and images. Inside is a Mac Pro bolted to the floor,
in turn connected to an assortment of SSDs for storage and a
dashboard-mounted iPad, where the actual map capture software runs. "

Given that Apple is creating their own maps, I'm not sure why they're
collecting map data from all the iPhones though but they mentioned that
they do collect iPhone users' map data so they're doing "something" with
the users' position.

"Apple is also relying on its millions of iPhone customers to passively and
actively improve data..."

[sms]

On 7/1/2018 1:06 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> "Apple Maps vans are equipped with GPS, eight cameras, and four LiDAR
> sensors, as well as a device attached to a rear wheel that ensures proper
> recording of distance and images. Inside is a Mac Pro bolted to the floor,
> in turn connected to an assortment of SSDs for storage and a
> dashboard-mounted iPad, where the actual map capture software runs. "

I doubt if the iPad is "where the actual map capture software runs." An
iPad could not capture and process the data from eight cameras and four
LIDAR units. The iPad is likely just the user interface.

[nospam]

In article <phg0dk$2d3$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

doubt all you want, but you're wrong.

an ipad's compute power can match or even beat many laptops and
desktops.

the map capture software does run on the ipad, which is sent to the mac
pro in the van to encrypt the data and save it on ssds, which are then
sent to apple to be decrypted and sanitized by removing people's faces,
license plates and any other identifying information, before the data
is ultimately analyzed and processed.

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:030720181115520406%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Whether it's an iPad, a laptop or desktop, I'm surprised that a single one
of them can process all the data from all the cameras. I'd expect that
amount of data to need significant parallel processing (maybe one
laptop/disc per camera/LIDAR) to do it in real time, with further offline
(non-real-time) processing needed to join all the cameras' views together to
generate the 360 degree image.

Why does the camera data needed to be encrypted in the van and then
decrypted back at base? Is it of such commercial sensitivity that there is a
risk of it being stolen from the van?

[nospam]

In article <gvqdnXVV3MMWLqbG...@brightview.co.uk>, NY

nobody said all of that was done on the ipad.

the map capture software runs on the ipad. the mac pro hosts the
multiple ssds and has the bandwidth to do so.

it's *incorrect* to say the ipad is just the user interface. that is
flat out wrong.

> Why does the camera data needed to be encrypted in the van and then
> decrypted back at base? Is it of such commercial sensitivity that there is a
> risk of it being stolen from the van?

because the raw data has people's faces, license plates and other
identifying information.

it's end-to-end encrypted so that *only* apple can decrypt it and
algorithmically sanitize it of all personal identifying information
before the data is reviewed and processed by humans.

in other words, privacy is a priority.

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:030720181353287778%nos...@nospam.invalid...

So they are worried about their photo getting into the wrong hands between
filming and loading onto the web. Though it's for reasons of privacy rather
than commercial value.

I don't know what Apple's sanitising is like, but I hope it's more selective
than Google's. Blurring faces and number plates is fine, but it's a shame
they do it for road signs and house names/numbers. When I have to go visit a
client at home, I look at Google Streetview beforehand to know what their
house looks like, so I'm not trying to read house numbers from the car. And
it's infuriating to find that house names/numbers on the gate, the house
wall or the front door are blurred out, so it's difficult to locate the
precise house. If the photos were taken on the day that the dustbins are
collected, it makes life a lot easier because most people paint their house
number on the wheely bin in letters that are about 6" high, which is large
enough not to be blurred by the algorithm, so you look for a bin with
roughly the correct number and count houses from there, on the basis that
*most* roads have consecutive odd numbers on one side and consecutive even
numbers on the other, with the odds and the evens matched (eg number 21 is
more or less opposite number 22) - if you are lucky :-)

[sms]

On 7/3/2018 10:34 AM, NY wrote:

> Whether it's an iPad, a laptop or desktop, I'm surprised that a single
> one of them can process all the data from all the cameras.

The iPad is the console, the app that controls the software running on
the Mac Pro hardware. Obviously they are not connecting eight cameras
(shooting overlapping high-resolution images), four Lidar units, the
wheel sensor, and the external GPS unit into an iPad, whether by USB or
Wi-Fi!

A Mac Pro 7GHz 12-core processor, with 30MB L3 cache, and 64GB of memory
should be able to handle the data acquisition. They have external
storage of course since the quantity of data is huge. They don't need to
process it inside the van, they just need to dump it at the end of each run.

[nospam]

In article <7YKdnZj53sbrQabG...@brightview.co.uk>, NY

<m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> > Why does the camera data needed to be encrypted in the van and then
> >> decrypted back at base? Is it of such commercial sensitivity that there
> >> is a risk of it being stolen from the van?
> >
> > because the raw data has people's faces, license plates and other
> > identifying information.
> >
> > it's end-to-end encrypted so that *only* apple can decrypt it and
> > algorithmically sanitize it of all personal identifying information
> > before the data is reviewed and processed by humans.
> >
> > in other words, privacy is a priority.
>
> So they are worried about their photo getting into the wrong hands between
> filming and loading onto the web. Though it's for reasons of privacy rather
> than commercial value.

there's not a lot of commercial data for what's in public view, but
there are privacy issues.

> I don't know what Apple's sanitising is like, but I hope it's more selective
> than Google's. Blurring faces and number plates is fine, but it's a shame
> they do it for road signs and house names/numbers.

apple is not only *not* blurring road signs, but they're doing image
recognition on them so they can give better routing, including lane
guidance and knowing if a turn is not allowed at specific times, going
so far to match the font so that the maps app can display an image that
looks exactly like the sign you're about to see and not something sort
of similar.

> When I have to go visit a
> client at home, I look at Google Streetview beforehand to know what their
> house looks like, so I'm not trying to read house numbers from the car. And
> it's infuriating to find that house names/numbers on the gate, the house
> wall or the front door are blurred out, so it's difficult to locate the
> precise house.

apple isn't (yet) trying to duplicate street view, nor is that needed
for routing.

however, they are mapping the building structures so to know where the
actual entrances are, which for commercial buildings and even some
residential buildings may not match the street address and in some
cases, they're around the corner.

one example are hospitals, where the main entrance and emergency room
are often not at the same part of the building, possibly even on
separate streets. knowing which one to go to can be *very* important.

[nospam]

In article <phgoj2$vi4$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > Whether it's an iPad, a laptop or desktop, I'm surprised that a single
> > one of them can process all the data from all the cameras.
>
> The iPad is the console, the app that controls the software running on
> the Mac Pro hardware.

no. the mac pro is to host the ssds and connect to the assorted
hardware in the vehicle.

> Obviously they are not connecting eight cameras
> (shooting overlapping high-resolution images), four Lidar units, the
> wheel sensor, and the external GPS unit into an iPad, whether by USB or
> Wi-Fi!

nobody said the cameras are connected directly to the ipad.

the ipad is more than just a front end. why is this so difficult to
accept? the compute power in an ipad is very capable.

[rfthyigthhyuijrpkejsekoieddrjiljhy]

On 7/3/2018 1:28 PM, NY wrote:

> I don't know what Apple's sanitising is like, but I hope it's more
> selective than Google's. Blurring faces and number plates is fine,
> but it's a shame they do it for road signs and house names/numbers.

A country thing maybe? I just picked out several US cities in Google
Maps Street View including my own and the road signs and house numbers
are NOT blurred out.

> If the photos were taken on the day that the dustbins are

> collected...

Yup. Gotta be somewhere else. What's a dustbin? :-/

[sms]

Trash can.

OSMAND displays all the house numbers. It uses offline maps so you don't
have to use up data. The basic app is free and gives you a limited
number of maps. The contour line add-on is not free but it's cheap
enough and useful if you're walking or cycling.

[sms]

On 7/3/2018 10:34 AM, NY wrote:

> Whether it's an iPad, a laptop or desktop, I'm surprised that a single
> one of them can process all the data from all the cameras. I'd expect
> that amount of data to need significant parallel processing (maybe one
> laptop/disc per camera/LIDAR) to do it in real time, with further
> offline (non-real-time) processing needed to join all the cameras' views
> together to generate the 360 degree image.

They don't say what all the hardware is and they don't say that they're
processing the data in real time. What they need is significant I/O
bandwidth. With 4 USB 3.0 ports and 6 Thunderbolt ports that's 10 of the
14 ports they need without any hubs. USB 3.0 is a maximum of 5Gb/s. USB
over Thunderbolt is a maximum of 10Gb/s. So clearly they're using one or
more hubs somewhere in this set-up.

The iPad is just the front end which makes sense. A lot of applications
now use a tablet as the console since there's no need for massive
compute power. Obviously a tablet doesn't have the compute power to
process or pass through the data from all the cameras and sensors.

[nospam]

In article <phh2it$ljl$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > Whether it's an iPad, a laptop or desktop, I'm surprised that a single
> > one of them can process all the data from all the cameras. I'd expect
> > that amount of data to need significant parallel processing (maybe one
> > laptop/disc per camera/LIDAR) to do it in real time, with further
> > offline (non-real-time) processing needed to join all the cameras' views
> > together to generate the 360 degree image.
>
> They don't say what all the hardware is and they don't say that they're
> processing the data in real time.

wrong on both. not only did apple say what hardware is on the van, but
they explicitly said it's later processed at apple.

> What they need is significant I/O
> bandwidth. With 4 USB 3.0 ports and 6 Thunderbolt ports that's 10 of the
> 14 ports they need without any hubs. USB 3.0 is a maximum of 5Gb/s. USB
> over Thunderbolt is a maximum of 10Gb/s. So clearly they're using one or
> more hubs somewhere in this set-up.

clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. thunderbolt is 40
gb/s and it can be daisy chained, making usb 3 not worth the trouble.

also keep in mind that none of it has to be off the shelf. they could
(and likely do) have custom hardware designed and built explicitly for
map capture, including a custom ipad.

> The iPad is just the front end which makes sense. A lot of applications
> now use a tablet as the console since there's no need for massive
> compute power. Obviously a tablet doesn't have the compute power to
> process or pass through the data from all the cameras and sensors.

the ipad is *not* just the front end, no matter how many times you keep
saying it.

[Arlen Holder]

On 3 Jul 2018 23:47:32 GMT, sms wrote:

> OSMAND displays all the house numbers. It uses offline maps so you don't
> have to use up data. The basic app is free and gives you a limited
> number of maps. The contour line add-on is not free but it's cheap
> enough and useful if you're walking or cycling.

Just a couple of clarifications on OSMAnd~ ...

a. It's free on Android if you get it from the FOSS site, F-Droid.
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.osmand.plus/>
I'll download the iOS OSMAnd to see how it works on the non-GPS iPad.

b. In general, the OSM road maps, IMHO, are pretty good.
Not as good as NavTech (e.g., Co-Pilot), nor as good as Google,
but "good enough" to be functional. (In fact, there's a certain really
bad section of the OSM maps that I will never report because I love that
it allows me to tell in an instant if an app is using OSM maps!)

c. The OSM biking/hiking maps are just OK, and functional enough (IMHO),
if you stay on the well established trails.

d. The only thing OSM maps are atrocious at are the contour maps
(aka topo maps), at least in the USA and, specifically in the
Santa Cruz Mountains. I've said it before and I've shown the
details in many screenshots, so suffice to say they're almost
completely useless compared to the free USGS 24,000:1 7.5-minute
maps (only for the USA, of course):
<https://www.usgs.gov/products/maps/topo-maps>

For offline US topo maps, on my GPS-enabled iPad, I used to use iHikeGPS
payware but it's on another iPad which the grandkids mostly use, so on my
latest WiFi-only iPad I just checked where I only have Topo Reader freeware
and Topo Maps freeware, and Topo Maps+ freeware for off-road use.

1. Topo Reader
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/topo-reader/id940309979>
2. Topo Maps
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/topo-maps-us/id1033846196>
3. Topo Maps+
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/topo-maps/id672246353>

Taking a quick peek at each just now, I see that #1 literally uses the
older offline USGS maps (which is fine for contours as they don't change
over time) and it allows me to zoom in beautifully.

The #2 above, you can't zoom in as close, but the maps seem to be USGS
based, but without the structures that are in normal USGS maps.

The #3 above uses the same older USGS maps (I know because of key errors
that I know what to look for) with structures that #1 uses, and they don't
allow you to download them with higher resolution, so that's why it's #3 in
the list.

There are other things to look at, such as recording tracks and routing
along a track, but right now, I'm just talking about the contour maps
themselves.

In summary, OSM maps are ok as long as you don't need accurate contour
lines, in which case the only way to go (in the US) is an app that has
offline USGS maps at a decent viewing level (IMHO), where my preferences
for maps are in the order above.

[sms]

On 7/3/2018 9:16 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2018 23:47:32 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> OSMAND displays all the house numbers. It uses offline maps so you don't
>> have to use up data. The basic app is free and gives you a limited
>> number of maps. The contour line add-on is not free but it's cheap
>> enough and useful if you're walking or cycling.
>
> Just a couple of clarifications on OSMAnd~ ...
>
> a. It's free on Android if you get it from the FOSS site, F-Droid.
> <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.osmand.plus/>
> I'll download the iOS OSMAnd to see how it works on the non-GPS iPad.
>
> b. In general, the OSM road maps, IMHO, are pretty good.
> Not as good as NavTech (e.g., Co-Pilot), nor as good as Google,
> but "good enough" to be functional. (In fact, there's a certain really
> bad section of the OSM maps that I will never report because I love that
> it allows me to tell in an instant if an app is using OSM maps!)

I have used Copilot for a long time. It's pretty good but I found some
glaring errors and even though I reported them, they didn't fix them.
One was the extension of Fremont Boulevard to Dixon Landing Road in
Milpitas. I was driving on a non-existent road. Still not sure if they
fixed it.

[sms]

On 7/3/2018 9:16 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> In summary, OSM maps are ok as long as you don't need accurate contour
> lines, in which case the only way to go (in the US) is an app that has
> offline USGS maps at a decent viewing level (IMHO), where my preferences
> for maps are in the order above.

What I also do is to just put JPEGS of park trail maps onto my phone.
I.e. my last mountain bike ride I used the PDF brochure at
<https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/549/files/wilderranchspweblayout2015.pdf>
and printed page 3 to a JPEG that I put on my phone. If only I had a
mapping app that showed the deep ruts on some trails I would not have
crashed ten days ago. It was so foggy that my glasses fogged up and I
didn't see the rut.

Since there is spotty to no coverage in many parks you have to plan ahead.

[Chris in Makati]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:28:31 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>I don't know what Apple's sanitising is like, but I hope it's more selective
>than Google's. Blurring faces and number plates is fine, but it's a shame
>they do it for road signs and house names/numbers. When I have to go visit a
>client at home, I look at Google Streetview beforehand to know what their
>house looks like, so I'm not trying to read house numbers from the car. And
>it's infuriating to find that house names/numbers on the gate, the house
>wall or the front door are blurred out, so it's difficult to locate the
>precise house. If the photos were taken on the day that the dustbins are
>collected, it makes life a lot easier because most people paint their house
>number on the wheely bin in letters that are about 6" high, which is large
>enough not to be blurred by the algorithm, so you look for a bin with
>roughly the correct number and count houses from there, on the basis that
>*most* roads have consecutive odd numbers on one side and consecutive even
>numbers on the other, with the odds and the evens matched (eg number 21 is
>more or less opposite number 22) - if you are lucky :-)

I totally agree. If I'm planning a trip to visit a company I often use
Google Street Maps to find the location in advance of my trip. It's
annoying to find that signboards that the company has put up precisely
to make it easy for customers to find them are often blurred out.

[NY]

"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5p5pjd9a861lv9qkn...@4ax.com...

Exactly. Maybe it is country-specific. I'm in the UK. Maybe some countries
are more lenient than others (maybe they only blank faces and not text such
as car number plates). Maybe some are more stringent and the sanitised
photos are virtually useless for locating specific buildings.

In the UK, people can quote their postcode (equivalent to the US ZIP code)
and this is usually accurate to a group of about 30 houses on one side of a
street (the houses opposite have a different postcode). Google
Maps/Streetview and satnavs can decode these to positions on a map, and can
get you pretty close. But sometimes you need to know exactly which house,
especially in a village where houses have names rather than numbers. If you
find number 20, you know that number 22 will be next door (*); but if you
find Lilac Cottage you've no idea where Belly Pig Cottage is in relation to
it (incidentally, the latter is a real house name in a village near me!).
But sometimes in a small village, everyone along a fairly long road may have
the same postcode.

That's where Streetview and house names/numbers on people's gates or front
doors is useful.


I'm surprised how many people have no name or number sign anywhere on their
house. How do they expect the emergency services to find their house in a
hurry, in the dark or pouring rain?


(*) Assuming the planners haven't gone mad and allocated numbers at random
or duplicated numbers. There are some streets where this has happened.

[Java Jive]

On 04/07/2018 11:30, NY wrote:
>
> In the UK, people can quote their postcode (equivalent to the US ZIP
> code) and this is usually accurate to a group of about 30 houses on one
> side of a street (the houses opposite have a different postcode)

This really isn't true. Presumably, postcodes are assigned by the PO,
and presumably according to some fairly basic rules, but also on an ad
hoc basis as people, especially posties, get confused. Thus, where my
parents used to live in Cambridge in a long, rambling house split into
three, of which they used 2 parts, they had one postcode, but the third
section had another. Big firms often seem to have a postcode of their
own. In the street in which I lived before here, both sides of the
street had the same postcode, and that was generally true of all the
streets nearby.

> If you find number 20, you know that number 22 will be next
> door (*)

Not necessarily at all. Nearby on this side road, there are three
different premises called 16 xyz, because they are all on the land of a
single former croft called 16 xyz! Many numbers in the sequence are
missing, and I'm 11, the house opposite is 17, my neighbour downhill
only uses his cottage name, the next house after that is one of the 16s
(odd and even numbers on the same side of the road), while number 13 is
about a mile away on the main road!

> but if you find Lilac Cottage you've no idea where Belly Pig
> Cottage is in relation to it (incidentally, the latter is a real house
> name in a village near me!). But sometimes in a small village, everyone
> along a fairly long road may have the same postcode.

Yes.

> That's where Streetview and house names/numbers on people's gates or
> front doors is useful.

Yes, indeed. First thing I did when moving into my last house was put
the number prominently on the front. Fortunately, it was already on the
roadside mailbox here.

[sms]

On 7/4/2018 3:30 AM, NY wrote:

<snip>

> Exactly. Maybe it is country-specific. I'm in the UK. Maybe some
> countries are more lenient than others (maybe they only blank faces and
> not text such as car number plates). Maybe some are more stringent and
> the sanitised photos are virtually useless for locating specific buildings.

In the U.S., there is no law that you can't take pictures of anyone, any
house, any car, from the public right-of-way. The mapping companies
voluntarily blur out license plate numbers, faces, and house numbers,
because it upsets some people to have those things clearly visible. It
creeps some people out to have someone taking pictures of them or their
house or their car.

[NY]

"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:phiafg$onc$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 04/07/2018 11:30, NY wrote:
>>
>> In the UK, people can quote their postcode (equivalent to the US ZIP
>> code) and this is usually accurate to a group of about 30 houses on one
>> side of a street (the houses opposite have a different postcode)
>
> This really isn't true. Presumably, postcodes are assigned by the PO, and
> presumably according to some fairly basic rules, but also on an ad hoc
> basis as people, especially posties, get confused. Thus, where my parents
> used to live in Cambridge in a long, rambling house split into three, of
> which they used 2 parts, they had one postcode, but the third section had
> another. Big firms often seem to have a postcode of their own. In the
> street in which I lived before here, both sides of the street had the same
> postcode, and that was generally true of all the streets nearby.

I'm only going on my observations, which I freely admit is very limited
data. I've read in info about postcodes that *in general* the same postcode
is allocated to about 30 houses and often they are consecutive on the same
side of the road. But for every "rule" there will be exceptions. Large
office blocks have their own postcode. Villages have the same postcode for
many houses which are spread out along a road, so mapping databases of
lat/long against postcode can only record the centre of that region which
may be much longer than on a densely-populated street.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_the_United_Kingdom doesn't give
any info (unless I've missed it) of the typical number of houses per
postcode "unit", so I'm not sure where I got that figure of 30 from.

Are UK postcodes generally able to identify a geographical location more
accurately than a US ZIP codes - is there a finer granularity?

>> If you find number 20, you know that number 22 will be next door (*)
>
> Not necessarily at all. Nearby on this side road, there are three
> different premises called 16 xyz, because they are all on the land of a
> single former croft called 16 xyz! Many numbers in the sequence are
> missing, and I'm 11, the house opposite is 17, my neighbour downhill only
> uses his cottage name, the next house after that is one of the 16s (odd
> and even numbers on the same side of the road), while number 13 is about a
> mile away on the main road!

A lot depends on how the houses are laid out and numbered. In a cul-de-sac
(dead end) houses are generally numbered consecutively starting at one end
nearest the junction with the road that the cul-de-sac joins, and continuing
up one side, round the blind end and back down the other side.

On many through roads, the numbering starts arbitrarily at one end and has
odds on one side and evens on the other, so 1 is (more or less) opposite 2,
and 101 is (more or less) opposite 102.

But there are lots of exceptions to that rule. Houses numbered at random. A,
B and C suffixes (eg 222B) for houses which are inserted in between existing
houses, or when a single house is divided into flats (eg one per floor).
Duplicated numbers. Numbers out of sequence.

And, as you say, separate "road names" which describe a group of new houses
that replace a large house on the site. When I use to be, our house was 3 X
Gardens which was in between two (consecutively?) numbered houses on X Lane,
although all the houses fronted onto the Lane. I remember it took the
postman a while to work out where this newfanged X Gardens was. My last
house was a new development on the site of a mansion, and the road name was
the same as the old mansion name, which is logical.

Occasionally postcodes change. My first house changed (on two separate
occasions) the number of the outward code (the part before the space) and
the number of the inward code (the part after the space). Trying to keep
everyone informed of the postcode change was horrendous - and Royal Mail
(bless 'em) didn't offer any parallel running and seemed to make no attempt
to deliver mail with a valid but out-of-date postcode.

[nospam]

In article <phikgr$sdh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Exactly. Maybe it is country-specific. I'm in the UK. Maybe some
> > countries are more lenient than others (maybe they only blank faces and
> > not text such as car number plates). Maybe some are more stringent and
> > the sanitised photos are virtually useless for locating specific buildings.
>
> In the U.S., there is no law that you can't take pictures of anyone, any
> house, any car, from the public right-of-way.

except when there is an expectation of privacy and/or it's prohibited,
or if a cop is on a power trip, particularly if you caught him doing
something he should not have been doing.

videos with audio could fall under wiretap laws, where you may need
consent of *all* parties.

tl;dr it's not as cut and dry as you claim.

> The mapping companies
> voluntarily blur out license plate numbers, faces, and house numbers,
> because it upsets some people to have those things clearly visible. It
> creeps some people out to have someone taking pictures of them or their
> house or their car.

as it should.

visible house numbers are also not required for routing, and certainly
not faces and license plates.

[sxgvegovujvdhdfortughjk]

Had a granddaughter photographed in front of her house (face blurred)
and published by Google Street View some years back. She considered it
an honor. Bragged to her friends. But then that's a teenager for you.

> visible house numbers are also not required for routing,

When I search Google Street View it often misses by a few houses or
buildings. So I find it handy to be able to verify the address by seeing
it directly on the building. So far I've not run into any blurred ones.

BTW found this chuckle while reading:
"Police Scotland received an apology for wasting police time in 2014
from a local business owner in Edinburgh who in 2012 had staged a fake
murder for the Google camera car by lying in the road "while his
colleague stood over him with a pickaxe handle".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View

[nospam]

In article <phj1u4$k2a$1...@dont-email.me>, sxgvegovujvdhdfortughjk

<8866...@0053756.com> wrote:


> > visible house numbers are also not required for routing,
>
> When I search Google Street View it often misses by a few houses or
> buildings. So I find it handy to be able to verify the address by seeing
> it directly on the building. So far I've not run into any blurred ones.

if the routing worked correctly, you wouldn't need to manually check
house numbers.

[sxgvegovujvdhdfortughjk]

In my personal experience routing often doesn't work correctly. While
many blindly trust their phones I prefer to know where and how I'm going
ahead of time. If I'm just trying to find a hamburger place then OK. But
on long trips across unfamiliar country, not so much.

Also on arrival routing just dumps you in the street. With Street View
(and satellite view) I can scope out which exact building (among
several), which parking lot to use and its entrance, and perhaps more
important, which parking lot I can't use because I can read the signs.

[Arlen Holder]

On 4 Jul 2018 14:10:33 GMT, sms wrote:

> In the U.S., there is no law that you can't take pictures of anyone, any
> house, any car, from the public right-of-way. The mapping companies
> voluntarily blur out license plate numbers, faces, and house numbers,
> because it upsets some people to have those things clearly visible. It
> creeps some people out to have someone taking pictures of them or their
> house or their car.

My understanding, mostly from misc.legal.moderated and rec.photo.digital
discussions in the distant past, is that what you say about the ability to
take photos of anything you can see in public in the USA is essentially
true ... except, as I recall, there are corner cases, such as when there is
an "expectation of privacy" by a "reasonable" person.

I don't remember the court case details, but, for example, if you stand on
the sidewalk with a telephoto lens peeking into a neighbor's bathroom
window, that might be one of those 'expectations of privacy' corner cases.

[Arlen Holder]

On 4 Jul 2018 07:11:20 GMT, sms wrote:

> What I also do is to just put JPEGS of park trail maps onto my phone.

That would work.
If you want "static maps", you can download the USGS maps also.

NOTE: USGS === United States Geological Survey (for those outside the USA).

In the Windows ng, I have a super-well-documented detailed tutorial which
shows how you can download any USGS contour map PDF, and then geocalibrate
it on Windows, on the big screen, so that you can literally plan a route by
clicking with your mouse ... click ... click ... click ... save ...

The beauty is you can ZOOM IN on a huge desktop monitor, so that you can
place your routes and waypoints almost exactly where you want them to be.

Then you can download the resulting track to your phone, and then use the
Android route-tracking apps to tell you "turn 30 degrees west to get back
on track", etc.

I haven't completed my in-depth testing of the Android offroad routing, so
you haven't seen that apnote - but when I asked the newsgroup how they
follow a route when there is no trail, nobody seemed to know more than I
did (although Poutnik and some others made helpful suggestions).

I tentatively concluded that almost none of you (if not none of you) do
these simple things that I do all the time that I need improved:
1. You create a detailed "planned route" on the desktop
2. You *follow* that planned route while hiking

NOTE: To be clear, there is no "road" nor "trail" that you can follow when
you're doing what I describe above. So the following of the route is in
terms of telling you how many feet you're off the route and how many
degrees you need to head in so that you can get back to the route.

If anyone on this newsgroup has a solution for this problem set, I'm
listening!

> I.e. my last mountain bike ride I used the PDF brochure at
> <https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/549/files/wilderranchspweblayout2015.pdf>
> and printed page 3 to a JPEG that I put on my phone. If only I had a
> mapping app that showed the deep ruts on some trails I would not have
> crashed ten days ago. It was so foggy that my glasses fogged up and I
> didn't see the rut.

What I look for are deep ravines, cliffs, poison-oak thickets that you have
to tunnel through, and heavy chaparral you have to crawl through on your
hands and knees, where they are all like wars in that they're very easy to
get into on your own terms, but almost impossible to get out of still on
your own terms! :)

> Since there is spotty to no coverage in many parks you have to plan ahead.

It's a truism that while off-trail hiking, you always have to plan ahead,
because the maps have to work offline and they have to be able to give you
your current position on the map, at the very least.

[Arlen Holder]

On 4 Jul 2018 06:24:05 GMT, sms wrote:

> I have used Copilot for a long time. It's pretty good but I found some
> glaring errors and even though I reported them, they didn't fix them.
> One was the extension of Fremont Boulevard to Dixon Landing Road in
> Milpitas. I was driving on a non-existent road. Still not sure if they
> fixed it.

I used CoPilot for years, on a laptop, literally on my lap, with a big
white 4-inch-diameter GPS receiver on my dashboard and an inverter plugged
into the cigarette lighter to power the laptop! (I then moved to the
DeLorme smaller yellow rectangle and a few others, as I recall.)

Then, like everyone else, I had my share of Garmin and Magellan (I hated
Magellan though) non-PC-based GPS receivers on my dash, starting with the
StreetPilot III with something like 8MG of memory (which wouldn't load a
full state).

Then smartphones evolved, where I initially put CoPilot on my Android and
iOS devices, where, I report years ago, CoPilot worked differently after
the trial period, which we can dig up the details of if we need that
information.

As I recall, everything worked fine during the CoPilot trial period on both
platforms, but on one or the other (I forget which) the voice directio0ns
stopped working, as did the re-routing when you went off route.

I don't like needless hassle, and I want my freeware to be fully
functional, so I stopped using CoPilot at that point, but I did note at the
time that the NavTech maps were as good (or maybe almost as good) as Google
Maps.

Meanwhile Google Maps just get better every day!
(as this thread is a testament to).

The one thing Google Maps is getting really good at is the offline download
database mechanism, where it used to be a bitch to download contiguous
sections for offline use, but now it's a breeze.

I'm not sure if they "really" expire after 30 days though, as I generally
only use Google Maps for the free traffic and nothing much else since there
are plenty of offline map apps that don't need to have their databasees
downloaded save for at initial installation time (e.g., MapFactor Navigator
is a good one for Android).
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mapfactor.navigator

Caution: When you need *accuracy* or *traffic*, then use Google Maps.
When you want offline convenience, then don't use Google Maps.

[nospam]

In article <phj73v$niu$1...@dont-email.me>, sxgvegovujvdhdfortughjk

<8866...@0053756.com> wrote:

> >>> visible house numbers are also not required for routing,
>
> >> When I search Google Street View it often misses by a few houses or
> >> buildings. So I find it handy to be able to verify the address by
> >> seeing it directly on the building. So far I've not run into any
> >> blurred ones.
>
> > if the routing worked correctly, you wouldn't need to manually check
> > house numbers.
>
> In my personal experience routing often doesn't work correctly. While
> many blindly trust their phones I prefer to know where and how I'm going
> ahead of time. If I'm just trying to find a hamburger place then OK. But
> on long trips across unfamiliar country, not so much.

that's how it currently is.

one of apple's goals is to address that shortcoming, without having to
manually check street view photos.

> Also on arrival routing just dumps you in the street. With Street View
> (and satellite view) I can scope out which exact building (among
> several), which parking lot to use and its entrance, and perhaps more
> important, which parking lot I can't use because I can read the signs.

again, that's how it currently is.

another one of apple's goals is to map the individual buildings, their
entrances and nearby parking so routing takes you to exactly where you
want to go, again, without needing to manually check street view
photos.

as i mentioned, this can be very important for hospitals, which may
have the main entrance and the emergency room at different parts of the
building, or perhaps even a separate building for larger hospitals.

currently, they have the inside of many shopping centers mapped, so if
you request routing to a particular store, it takes you to the closest
entrance and can give you walking directions from that entrance once
inside.

[sms]

On 7/4/2018 1:01 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Caution: When you need *accuracy* or *traffic*, then use Google Maps.
> When you want offline convenience, then don't use Google Maps.

Apple seems to be committed to making Apple Maps as good or better than
Google maps. Glad they finally realized that they really have to own
their own content when it comes to mapping, and it has to be good.

Waze is amazing. It's like the perfect crowd-sourced application.

[rfthyigthhyuijrpkejsekoieddrjiljhy]

On 7/4/2018 1:16 PM, nospam wrote:

> sxgvegovujvdhdfortughj wrote:

>> When I search Google Street View it often misses by a few houses
>> or buildings. So I find it handy to be able to verify the address
>> by seeing it directly on the building.

> one of apple's goals is to address that shortcoming...

> another one of apple's goals is to...

Apple this and Apple that?? Your Fanboi is showing again in this Google
thread in this Android group...

[nospam]

In article <phjdlh$bp$2...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> Apple seems to be committed to making Apple Maps as good or better than
> Google maps. Glad they finally realized that they really have to own
> their own content when it comes to mapping, and it has to be good.

apple knew that all along. however, it's not as if they can instantly
have their own map data, so they had to settle for existing solutions
for the short term to get away from google's predatory licensing
restrictions.

> Waze is amazing. It's like the perfect crowd-sourced application.

it's also full of ads and not everyone wants to be part of the crowd
sourcing either.

[Arlen Holder]

On 4 Jul 2018 21:19:45 GMT, sms wrote:

> Apple seems to be committed to making Apple Maps as good or better than
> Google maps. Glad they finally realized that they really have to own
> their own content when it comes to mapping, and it has to be good.

Apple "says" they're committed, which doesn't mean much.
It's a good sign though, that they say that they are committed.

Although, I noted the math in that referenced article was unrealistic, in
that they take such a long time for the Bay Area, and then the entire
country shows up in just a year? (Seems like yet more overpromising from
Apple.)

As you know, nobody overpromises more than Apple does (witness the Craig
Federighi email to employees earlier this year stating that the
overpromising must stop).

Given that Apple has been caught in critically obvious blatant lies, and
given that Apple is chronically abusing their overpromising, I don't put
much stock in anything Apple "says" about 'how good' their Apple Maps app
will be.

Still ... I love competition since whatever Google does well, Apple will
try to copy, so that's a good thing in my book, particulary if Apple adds a
bit of privacy to the collection of user's data.

BTW, the article we referenced alluded to automatic collection of snippets
of trip-related data from all the iOS users.

Does anyone have details on what that (involuntary?) collection of users'
trip data entails?

> Waze is amazing. It's like the perfect crowd-sourced application.

I don't use Waze, although I tested it once, a couple of years or so ago,
but I don't recall Waze doing anything useful.

I'm also allergic to (privacy-leaking) logins, as you are well aware.
So every app has to work sans registration - or it gets deleted.

What would you say Waze does that Google maps don't already do?

[nospam]

In article <phjfm7$sqm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
rfthyigthhyuijrpkejsekoieddrjiljhy <134544...@8660566746679.com>

wrote:

>
> >> When I search Google Street View it often misses by a few houses
> >> or buildings. So I find it handy to be able to verify the address
> >> by seeing it directly on the building.
>
> > one of apple's goals is to address that shortcoming...
>
> > another one of apple's goals is to...
>
> Apple this and Apple that?? Your Fanboi is showing again in this Google
> thread in this Android group...

this subthread, started by someone else and crossposted to several
groups, was about apple's newly announced map project:

<In article <pha21c$h5m$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On a related note, Apple rolled out this week "first party" maps.
>
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/29/apple-taking-maps-to-the-next-level-
> in-ios-12
>
> They only have the SF Bay Area for now, but they plan on building
> first-party maps for the country.
>
> "Apple Maps vans are equipped with GPS, eight cameras, and four LiDAR
> sensors, as well as a device attached to a rear wheel that ensures proper
> recording of distance and images. Inside is a Mac Pro bolted to the floor,
> in turn connected to an assortment of SSDs for storage and a
> dashboard-mounted iPad, where the actual map capture software runs. "
>
> Given that Apple is creating their own maps, I'm not sure why they're
> collecting map data from all the iPhones though but they mentioned that
> they do collect iPhone users' map data so they're doing "something" with
> the users' position.
>
> "Apple is also relying on its millions of iPhone customers to passively and
> actively improve data..."

[nospam]

In article <phjfup$kge$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> Although, I noted the math in that referenced article was unrealistic, in
> that they take such a long time for the Bay Area, and then the entire
> country shows up in just a year? (Seems like yet more overpromising from
> Apple.)

read it again, this time for comprehension.

> As you know, nobody trolls more than Arlen Holder

ftfy

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:19:45 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Waze is owned by Google now, and for a while I couldn't decide which I
liked better: Google maps or Waze. I tried both. There's very little
difference between them these days, but I eventually decided I
slightly preferred Google Maps.

[nospam]

In article <4ulqjdp53ikmusfah...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake

<K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> >
> >Waze is amazing. It's like the perfect crowd-sourced application.
>
> Waze is owned by Google now, and for a while I couldn't decide which I
> liked better: Google maps or Waze. I tried both. There's very little
> difference between them these days, but I eventually decided I
> slightly preferred Google Maps.

google also gimped the speed trap alerting in waze, succumbing to
political pressure.

[sms]

I haven't gone back to Google Maps for navigation since using Waze, so I
don't know if they've added all the alerts like pothole, police, car
stopped, object on road, etc..

[sms]

On 7/4/2018 2:58 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2018 21:19:45 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> Apple seems to be committed to making Apple Maps as good or better than
>> Google maps. Glad they finally realized that they really have to own
>> their own content when it comes to mapping, and it has to be good.
>
> Apple "says" they're committed, which doesn't mean much.
> It's a good sign though, that they say that they are committed.
>
> Although, I noted the math in that referenced article was unrealistic, in
> that they take such a long time for the Bay Area, and then the entire
> country shows up in just a year? (Seems like yet more overpromising from
> Apple.)

Once they get the acquisition system all working seamlessly they will be
able to quickly replicate the hardware and software set-up, given the
financial commitment, which they appear to be willing to make.

[nospam]

In article <phjtad$hjh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Although, I noted the math in that referenced article was unrealistic, in
> > that they take such a long time for the Bay Area, and then the entire
> > country shows up in just a year? (Seems like yet more overpromising from
> > Apple.)
>
> Once they get the acquisition system all working seamlessly they will be
> able to quickly replicate the hardware and software set-up, given the
> financial commitment, which they appear to be willing to make.

it's been working seamlessly for several years.

[sms]

On 7/4/2018 2:58 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Still ... I love competition since whatever Google does well, Apple will
> try to copy, so that's a good thing in my book, particulary if Apple adds a
> bit of privacy to the collection of user's data.

Apple is much more into privacy than Google. The problem with mapping is
that crowd-sourced-data is essential, and there is enormous monetary
value in that data. It's not unobvious how Google uses that data now.

It would not be surprising if Apple ended up with a mapping product that
is superior to Google Maps. Would they roll it out to other mobile
platforms like they did with Apple Music? Doing so would be a poke at
Google which pretty much owns the mapping app business now, even for iOS.

[nospam]

In article <phl4cf$hs2$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple is much more into privacy than Google.

privacy is one of apple's top priorities, whereas for google,
monetizing user data is their business model, the very opposite of
privacy.

> The problem with mapping is
> that crowd-sourced-data is essential, and there is enormous monetary
> value in that data. It's not unobvious how Google uses that data now.

crowd sourced data is useful in some cases, such as real-time traffic,
but it is not essential for mapping.

> It would not be surprising if Apple ended up with a mapping product that
> is superior to Google Maps. Would they roll it out to other mobile
> platforms like they did with Apple Music?

probably not.

> Doing so would be a poke at
> Google which pretty much owns the mapping app business now, even for iOS.

not on ios, they don't.

[Arlen Holder]

On 5 Jul 2018 01:39:34 GMT, sms wrote:

> I haven't gone back to Google Maps for navigation since using Waze, so I
> don't know if they've added all the alerts like pothole, police, car
> stopped, object on road, etc..

Hi sms,
I tried Waze a long time ago, and, as I recall, it required an "account",
which Google Maps does not require (nor do most good routing apps).

Does Waze require logging in?

[Arlen Holder]

On 5 Jul 2018 12:53:31 GMT, sms wrote:

> Apple is much more into privacy than Google.

Apple is "odd" in that they'll blatantly lie to their customers (which is
proven fact) and yet - they "say" they're into privacy.

Google, at least, says they're NOT into privacy (so to speak), so, at least
Google tells the truth.

The problem with Apple always being caught in pretty big public lies is
that we can't believe a word they say.

So, I'm not sure if Apple cares about user privacy or not because it's
clear Apple can't be trusted to tell the truth. (That's simply a fact.)

> The problem with mapping is
> that crowd-sourced-data is essential, and there is enormous monetary
> value in that data. It's not unobvious how Google uses that data now.

Apple is one of the most profitable companies on the planet, so, let's
"hope" that they don't need to "sell" their users' data to make more money.

Google certainly does.

The problem is that it's a fact that you can't believe a single thing Apple
says because they're been caught in *multiple* *big* *public* *lies*
recently.

> It would not be surprising if Apple ended up with a mapping product that
> is superior to Google Maps.

Personally, I doubt it, as Apple has rarely (IMHO) created a "superior"
product that is 'open'. The only products Apple makes that are decent are
the closed restricted highly constrained products (e.g., the way they do
user-to-user communications within the walled garden, for example).

When Apple has to compete on functioanlity and power, they often fail (as
they did with Apple Maps) simply because providing user functionality is
not Apple's forte.

For example, can you name a *single* iOS app by Apple that can be used by
everyone that is best in class in terms of functionality and flexibility
for the user?

It's a serious thought question ... where I'd be interested to know if
anyone can come up with a single iOS best-in-class app that Apple created
that actually isn't only good wholly ensconced within the narrow confines
of the walled garden.

> Would they roll it out to other mobile
> platforms like they did with Apple Music? Doing so would be a poke at
> Google which pretty much owns the mapping app business now, even for iOS.

If Google can beat Garmin, I doubt Apple stands a chance; but, if Apple
improves the free Apple Map app, I'm all for it as it will spur Google to
improve theirs.

For example, if Apple has as good a Map app plus privacy, that would spur
users to switch off of Google. (Personally, I don't use Google Maps unless
I desperately need accuracy - where - as you know - I have a lot of the
spyware turned off by default.)

[nospam]

In article <phleo6$p29$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

> I tried Waze a long time ago, and, as I recall, it required an "account",
> which Google Maps does not require (nor do most good routing apps).
>
> Does Waze require logging in?

no.

as usual, you fail at the simplest things.

[nospam]

In article <phleod$p29$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Apple is "odd" in that they'll blatantly lie to their customers (which is
> proven fact) and yet - they "say" they're into privacy.

they do not lie to anyone.

you, however, do.

[sms]

On 7/5/2018 8:50 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Apple is one of the most profitable companies on the planet, so, let's
> "hope" that they don't need to "sell" their users' data to make more money.

There's a difference between selling user's data and selling access to
users to relevant advertisers using information gleaned from their activity.

I don't use Safari on my iPad so I don't know if I'd suddenly be served
up advertising from relevant companies after doing a search for
something related to what that company sells. But there would be nothing
really wrong with doing that.

> Personally, I doubt it, as Apple has rarely (IMHO) created a "superior"
> product that is 'open'. The only products Apple makes that are decent are
> the closed restricted highly constrained products (e.g., the way they do
> user-to-user communications within the walled garden, for example).

Perhaps, but there could be a big upside in making an Android version of
Apple maps. Android market share is increasing while iOS market share is
decreasing so if there's a chance to target map users with specific
advertising, based on their location, it would make sense to have as
broad a user base as possible.

[nospam]

In article <phlfru$s9m$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:


> > Personally, I doubt it, as Apple has rarely (IMHO) created a "superior"
> > product that is 'open'. The only products Apple makes that are decent are
> > the closed restricted highly constrained products (e.g., the way they do
> > user-to-user communications within the walled garden, for example).
>
> Perhaps, but there could be a big upside in making an Android version of
> Apple maps.

the downside is they'd be helping their competitor, which would be
stupid.

> Android market share is increasing while iOS market share is
> decreasing

not true, and market share doesn't matter anyway.

> so if there's a chance to target map users with specific
> advertising, based on their location, it would make sense to have as
> broad a user base as possible.

they already have that.

[Arlen Holder]

On 5 Jul 2018 16:09:32 GMT, sms wrote:

> There's a difference between selling user's data and selling access to
> users to relevant advertisers using information gleaned from their activity.

Agreed.

> there could be a big upside in making an Android version of
> Apple maps.

Agreed.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 05.07.18 um 18:02 schrieb nospam:

This Troll Arlen Holder is using an anonymous server.

He very much reminds me of the former "Ultred Ragnusen" or "Harold
Newton"...

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 05.07.18 um 17:50 schrieb Arlen Holder:

Path: news.albasani.net!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arlen Holder <arlen...@nospam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad,comp.mobile.android,alt.satellite.gps

That says everything!

Anonymous server and crossposting over several groups without a correct
FUP2.

The Ragnusen- or Newton-Troll!

[nospam]

In article <phna2j$se1$1...@news.albasani.net>, Joerg Lorenz

<hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:

> This Troll Arlen Holder is using an anonymous server.
>
> He very much reminds me of the former "Ultred Ragnusen" or "Harold
> Newton"...

as it should, because it's the same person.

[PeterN]

On 7/4/2018 4:01 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2018 14:10:33 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> In the U.S., there is no law that you can't take pictures of anyone, any
>> house, any car, from the public right-of-way. The mapping companies
>> voluntarily blur out license plate numbers, faces, and house numbers,
>> because it upsets some people to have those things clearly visible. It
>> creeps some people out to have someone taking pictures of them or their
>> house or their car.
>
> My understanding, mostly from misc.legal.moderated and rec.photo.digital
> discussions in the distant past, is that what you say about the ability to
> take photos of anything you can see in public in the USA is essentially
> true ... except, as I recall, there are corner cases, such as when there is
> an "expectation of privacy" by a "reasonable" person.
>
> I don't remember the court case details, but, for example, if you stand on
> the sidewalk with a telephoto lens peeking into a neighbor's bathroom
> window, that might be one of those 'expectations of privacy' corner cases.
>


There very well may be more than simply issues of expectation of
privacy. Also, the laws may very well vary from one jurisdiction to
another. There are also practical considerations. The photography rules
of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in new York City, come to
mind. And are but one example. If it is important to you, consult an
attorney, who's practice concentrates in that area of the law. Do not
rely in Internet BS.

--
PeterN

[sms]

On 7/5/2018 9:22 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

>> there could be a big upside in making an Android version of
>> Apple maps.
>
> Agreed.

Apple doesn't care that much about market share, profit is much more
important. But they still have been willing to offer some products on
Android devices like Apple Music, because of Android's market share.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ios-market-share-us-europe-japan-2018-1>.
Maps could be another such product, even though it's free.

Personally I think that 2018 will be a good year for Apple once the
iPhone 9 goes on sale, provided that they have a large screen model as a
competitor to the Samsung Note 8 and Galaxy S9+, as has been predicted.

[nospam]

In article <phosio$iro$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple doesn't care that much about market share, profit is much more
> important.

as it should be.

market share is meaningless if you're losing money...

> But they still have been willing to offer some products on
> Android devices like Apple Music, because of Android's market share.

nope. it has more to do with apple buying beats music, which was on
anrdoid prior to being purchased as well as it being a paid service
that's largely controlled by record company contracts.

> Maps could be another such product, even though it's free.

there is zero benefit for apple to offer apple maps on android.

it's actually a negative, as it would be helping the competition.

> Personally I think that 2018 will be a good year for Apple once the
> iPhone 9 goes on sale, provided that they have a large screen model as a
> competitor to the Samsung Note 8 and Galaxy S9+, as has been predicted.

more bs.

2018 already is an exceptional year for apple, with a very strong
lineup and having the most popular phones sold.

[Arlen Holder]

On 6 Jul 2018 20:24:30 GMT, PeterN wrote:

> There very well may be more than simply issues of expectation of
> privacy. Also, the laws may very well vary from one jurisdiction to
> another. There are also practical considerations. The photography rules
> of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in new York City, come to
> mind. And are but one example. If it is important to you, consult an
> attorney, who's practice concentrates in that area of the law. Do not
> rely in Internet BS.

You bring up a point in that I had pulled over to the side of the road in
NY on the throughway where a cop told me that I couldn't take pictures of
the beautiful foliage.

He didn't give me a ticket - but he said it was illegal.

[nospam]

In article <php0sm$fnm$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

he was wrong. there is nothing illegal about taking photos of trees.

however, pulling over may have been a ticketable offense.

[Savageduck]

On Jul 6, 2018, nospam wrote
(in article<060720182235146295%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

On the NY State Thruway stopping for other than an emergency could well be a
ticketable offense (subject to the tale told the officer, and whether, or not
the attitude test is passed). Taking a photo of the scenery is not classified
as an emergency.

Why do we have this cross post here in r.p.d.?

I guess I didn’t really need to ask considering the OP. ;-)

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.20F061A101...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > > > There very well may be more than simply issues of expectation of
> > > > privacy. Also, the laws may very well vary from one jurisdiction to
> > > > another. There are also practical considerations. The photography rules
> > > > of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in new York City, come to
> > > > mind. And are but one example. If it is important to you, consult an
> > > > attorney, who's practice concentrates in that area of the law. Do not
> > > > rely in Internet BS.
> > >
> > > You bring up a point in that I had pulled over to the side of the road in
> > > NY on the throughway where a cop told me that I couldn't take pictures of
> > > the beautiful foliage.
> > >
> > > He didn't give me a ticket - but he said it was illegal.
> >
> > he was wrong. there is nothing illegal about taking photos of trees.
> >
> > however, pulling over may have been a ticketable offense.
>
> On the NY State Thruway stopping for other than an emergency could well be a
> ticketable offense (subject to the tale told the officer, and whether, or not
> the attitude test is passed). Taking a photo of the scenery is not classified
> as an emergency.

yep. that's my point.

> Why do we have this cross post here in r.p.d.?
>

> I guess I didnšt really need to ask considering the OP. ;-)

yep.

[Chris in Makati]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:19:45 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/4/2018 1:01 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Caution: When you need *accuracy* or *traffic*, then use Google Maps.
>> When you want offline convenience, then don't use Google Maps.
>

>Apple seems to be committed to making Apple Maps as good or better than
>Google maps.

They were saying that when they first launched Apple Maps six years
and still haven't got even close.

[Chris in Makati]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:53:32 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
>crowd sourced data is useful in some cases, such as real-time traffic,
>but it is not essential for mapping.

It isn't if you can afford an army of people to travel to the remotest
parts of the world to plot the data for your maps. If you don't mind
investing billions of dollars to do that, then fine.

If not, then you have to rely on local people to map their own
localities.

[Arlen Holder]

On 7 Jul 2018 09:48:07 GMT, Chris in Makati wrote:

> They were saying that when they first launched Apple Maps six years
> and still haven't got even close.

While Apple has more resources than does God himself, I think it will
easily be proven that Apple can never make a best-in-class iOS app that
works *outside* the walled garden.

*Prove that statement wrong, someone, particularly you Apple apologists.*

Name a single wholly Apple iOS app that is best in class, that actually
works *outside* the walled garden (as maps must do).

BTW. I'm assuming that there must be, at least one, Apple iOS app that
works outside the walled garden that is "best in class", but I can't think
of any offhand.

Maybe the Apple Apologists who infest this ng can come up with a single
good Apple iOS app that works outside the walled garden?

If they can't come up with a single product, then we can safely assume that
Apple has *never* created an iOS app that is best in class that works
outside their highly restricted walled garden.

[nospam]

In article <c031kd18615nbk8ho...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >crowd sourced data is useful in some cases, such as real-time traffic,
> >but it is not essential for mapping.
>
> It isn't if you can afford an army of people to travel to the remotest
> parts of the world to plot the data for your maps. If you don't mind
> investing billions of dollars to do that, then fine.

which is exactly what apple is doing.

> If not, then you have to rely on local people to map their own
> localities.

they don't have the necessary equipment to do so.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 10:15:35 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <c031kd18615nbk8ho...@4ax.com>, Chris in
>Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >crowd sourced data is useful in some cases, such as real-time traffic,
>> >but it is not essential for mapping.
>>
>> It isn't if you can afford an army of people to travel to the remotest
>> parts of the world to plot the data for your maps. If you don't mind
>> investing billions of dollars to do that, then fine.
>
>which is exactly what apple is doing.

No they're not.

There are over 57 million square miles of land area on Earth. You'd
need to send hundreds of thousands of people off to plot every Gas
Station, Bus Station, Train Station, University, Courthouse, Clinic,
Embassy, Factory, Fire Station, Government Office, Hospital, Library,
Office, Police Station, Post Office, Church, School, ATM, Bank, Car
Dealership, Convenience Store, Gym, Laundry, Market, Pharmacy,
Shopping Center, Supermarket, Shop, Travel Agency, Bakery, Bar, Coffee
Shop, Restaurant, Casino, Cinema, Museum, Theater, Hotel, Sports
Center in the entire world. By the time they'd finished a lot of the
data they'd gathered would be out of data so you'd have to start all
over again

I don't think you've even begun to grasp the enormity of doing that
kind of job using your own staff. Where would they even get all those
people from? Crowd sourcing is the only realistic solution for any
task that requires huge numbers of people to be involved in.

>> If not, then you have to rely on local people to map their own
>> localities.
>
>they don't have the necessary equipment to do so.

Of course they do. That's how Google Maps were produced.

In fact I did a huge amount of work myself on the production of Google
Maps in the Philippines and other places in SE Asia when their Google
Mapmaker tool was available for people to work with.

[nospam]

In article <uro1kd1d9a4j2rngq...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> >crowd sourced data is useful in some cases, such as real-time traffic,
> >> >but it is not essential for mapping.
> >>
> >> It isn't if you can afford an army of people to travel to the remotest
> >> parts of the world to plot the data for your maps. If you don't mind
> >> investing billions of dollars to do that, then fine.
> >
> >which is exactly what apple is doing.
>
> No they're not.

it's *exactly* what they're doing and they have the billions of dollars
to do it.

apple's home turf is currently live, with the rest of the usa expected
to be live within a year.

i don't know what the timetable is for other countries, but those are
in progress.

> There are over 57 million square miles of land area on Earth. You'd
> need to send hundreds of thousands of people off to plot every Gas
> Station, Bus Station, Train Station, University, Courthouse, Clinic,
> Embassy, Factory, Fire Station, Government Office, Hospital, Library,
> Office, Police Station, Post Office, Church, School, ATM, Bank, Car
> Dealership, Convenience Store, Gym, Laundry, Market, Pharmacy,
> Shopping Center, Supermarket, Shop, Travel Agency, Bakery, Bar, Coffee
> Shop, Restaurant, Casino, Cinema, Museum, Theater, Hotel, Sports
> Center in the entire world. By the time they'd finished a lot of the
> data they'd gathered would be out of data so you'd have to start all
> over again
>
> I don't think you've even begun to grasp the enormity of doing that
> kind of job using your own staff. Where would they even get all those
> people from? Crowd sourcing is the only realistic solution for any
> task that requires huge numbers of people to be involved in.

except that the 'crowd' doesn't have a fleet of vans with gps, lidar
and multiple cameras on top, so the 'crowd' *can't* provide the
necessary data that apple requires.

plus, apple does not need to map every single square mile of the
planet.

> >> If not, then you have to rely on local people to map their own
> >> localities.
> >
> >they don't have the necessary equipment to do so.
>
> Of course they do. That's how Google Maps were produced.

no, they don't, and that's not how google maps was produced either.

originally, google *bought* map data, much like apple did several years
ago, and then embarked on their own mapping efforts to improve upon it,
just like apple is doing now.

google now has a huge fleet of vehicles with cameras and gps that drive
around every day, in addition to using satellite data, airplane
flyovers and other data.

they also have backpacks for mapping offroad areas as well as indoors:
<https://blueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/card/image/45
9667/d353aac3-8ba7-4301-9423-dbeb5e7f395e.jpg>
<https://blueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/card/image/45
9717/769b21ab-94ce-42fe-a99d-5c8332ebf8ac.gif>

none of that is anything the 'crowd' would have.

> In fact I did a huge amount of work myself on the production of Google
> Maps in the Philippines and other places in SE Asia when their Google
> Mapmaker tool was available for people to work with.

you drove around in a vehicle that had multiple cameras on its roof all
day, every day, and then sent all that data to google for processing?

no, you didn't, however, if you do want to help, here's how to apply,
except not everyone will be approved:
<https://www.google.com/streetview/loan/>

[Chris in Makati]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 12:53:31 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

The "crowd" doesn't need all that gear just to plot the location of
their local supermarket. You just need a computer, and if you don't
have one you can make edits by walking into your local internet cafe.

We're not talking about duplicating Google Street View. I was
responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some

cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
mapping."

Yes I did, and I didn't need that kind of vehicle to drive around in.
Google didn't map locations such as those I mentioned that way. It was
done by volunteers in the local communities using their local
knowledge to add them.

This is why after six years Apple Maps are still dire in many
locations, whereas Google Maps are so detailed.

As usual, when cornered you change the subject. I specifically
responded to your statement that "crowd sourced data is useful in some

cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
mapping".

We're talking about MAPPING, not Street View.

[nospam]

In article <2ov1kd5n2ca9urlbe...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> There are over 57 million square miles of land area on Earth. You'd
> >> need to send hundreds of thousands of people off to plot every Gas
> >> Station, Bus Station, Train Station, University, Courthouse, Clinic,
> >> Embassy, Factory, Fire Station, Government Office, Hospital, Library,
> >> Office, Police Station, Post Office, Church, School, ATM, Bank, Car
> >> Dealership, Convenience Store, Gym, Laundry, Market, Pharmacy,
> >> Shopping Center, Supermarket, Shop, Travel Agency, Bakery, Bar, Coffee
> >> Shop, Restaurant, Casino, Cinema, Museum, Theater, Hotel, Sports
> >> Center in the entire world. By the time they'd finished a lot of the
> >> data they'd gathered would be out of data so you'd have to start all
> >> over again
> >>
> >> I don't think you've even begun to grasp the enormity of doing that
> >> kind of job using your own staff. Where would they even get all those
> >> people from? Crowd sourcing is the only realistic solution for any
> >> task that requires huge numbers of people to be involved in.
> >
> >except that the 'crowd' doesn't have a fleet of vans with gps, lidar
> >and multiple cameras on top, so the 'crowd' *can't* provide the
> >necessary data that apple requires.
>
> The "crowd" doesn't need all that gear just to plot the location of
> their local supermarket. You just need a computer, and if you don't
> have one you can make edits by walking into your local internet cafe.

apple is doing much more than simply plotting locations of
supermarkets, which they already have anyway.

> We're not talking about duplicating Google Street View.

correct. it's about what apple's doing, which is more than what you
think it is.

> I was
> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
> mapping."

that statement is correct.

the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.

> This is why after six years Apple Maps are still dire in many
> locations, whereas Google Maps are so detailed.

no that's not why. google's maps are detailed because they drive around
and map stuff.

go compare what apple has now to what google had when google started.

> As usual, when cornered you change the subject. I specifically
> responded to your statement that "crowd sourced data is useful in some
> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
> mapping".

i didn't change anything.

> We're talking about MAPPING, not Street View.

nope. we're talking about what apple is currently doing, not what you
think they're doing.

and it's not going to happen overnight, nor did it with google.

[Frank Slootweg]

Indeed. As has been said in many other cases, nospam *really* should
get out more.

> >> If not, then you have to rely on local people to map their own
> >> localities.
> >
> >they don't have the necessary equipment to do so.
>
> Of course they do. That's how Google Maps were produced.
>
> In fact I did a huge amount of work myself on the production of Google
> Maps in the Philippines and other places in SE Asia when their Google
> Mapmaker tool was available for people to work with.

Nah! Can't be! You have to drive around in a car with zillions of
cameras, iPads, iMacs, etc.. Never mind that those cars can't get
anywhere where only high-clearance 4WDs can get through.

And what about those bastards who said they improved electronic maps
of badly mapped, hard to get to, areas, by using old maps and satellite
imaginary on a laptop in the comfort of their own homes. They even
claimed they helped local rescue operations by doing that. Bloody liars!

Thank heavens we have all-knowing nospam to set the world straight!

[nospam]

In article <phrh3f...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

it ain't me who needs to get out more.

what apple is doing cannot be done with crowdsourced map data.

plus they already have a lot of crowdsourced data anyway. this goes
*well* beyond it.

[sms]

On 7/7/2018 11:16 AM, Chris in Makati wrote:

> We're not talking about duplicating Google Street View. I was
> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
> mapping."

Crowd sourced data is not essential for mapping. You can do mapping
without it. Only if you want to do _accurate_ mapping is crowd
sourced-data essential.

It's not always obvious to those that are not well-informed about how
map creation works why crowd-sourced data is so useful. There's an
example a block away from my house! Non-crowd sourced mapping
applications insist that a road has restricted access. In fact that
restricted access was eliminated about fifteen years ago. A
crowd-sourced application sees vehicles using that road at all times of
day and it knows that it's a viable route so it doesn't try to route you
on some circuitous route to get around a non-existent barrier. There's
another example where I used to work. I would take a road that did not
exist according to non-crowd-sourced mapping, even though that road had
been opened for at least a year, but crowd sourced mapping knew it existed.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 07.07.18 um 14:11 schrieb Arlen Holder:

> On 7 Jul 2018 09:48:07 GMT, Chris in Makati wrote:
>
>> They were saying that when they first launched Apple Maps six years
>> and still haven't got even close.
>
> While Apple has more resources than does God himself, I think it will
> easily be proven that Apple can never make a best-in-class iOS app that
> works *outside* the walled garden.

Path: news.albasani.net!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arlen Holder <arlen...@nospam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad,comp.mobile.android,alt.satellite.gps

Are you trying to imitate "Harry Newton" or "Ultred Ragnusen", stupid Troll?

You even don't know what a correct FUP2 is and you want to teach anybody
what Apple can do or can't do?

[nospam]

In article <phrn51$crb$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > We're not talking about duplicating Google Street View. I was
> > responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
> > cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
> > mapping."
>
> Crowd sourced data is not essential for mapping. You can do mapping
> without it. Only if you want to do _accurate_ mapping is crowd
> sourced-data essential.

crowd-sourced data has its uses, however, what apple is doing goes
*well* beyond anything crowd-sourced data can ever hope to offer.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 14:37:13 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Of course they can. Common sense tells you that the entire global
community can do more than a relatively small number of Apple
employees or sub-contractors could ever achieve. That becomes obvious
when you compare the detail of Google Maps with Apple's attempt in
many places.

>> This is why after six years Apple Maps are still dire in many
>> locations, whereas Google Maps are so detailed.
>
>no that's not why. google's maps are detailed because they drive around
>and map stuff.

No they don't. They rely on local contributors adding details to maps
in their local areas. I've already explained to you how I've been
doing that myself for a long time now on Google.

Still don't believe me? Then open up Google Maps and right-click on
the map. See the menu that opens up where it says "Add a missing
place". When I add a missing place there it appears on Google Maps
within about 24 hours because I'm a trusted contributor. If I make
corrections to an existing place it's held until a certain number of
other editors confirm it's accuracy. That normally takes a matter of
days. That's how well crowd-sourcing works.

I reported an incorrect spelling for a street near me about 5 years
ago and Apple STILL haven't put it right after all this time. That's
why crowd-sourcing works and Apple's system has been a failure.

>go compare what apple has now to what google had when google started.

Why? You talk as if Apple are new guys on the block. Apple have been
around at least 20 years longer than Google, so they should be leading
the pack instead of playing catch-up

[nospam]

In article <oug4kdpe53kfc6okv...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> I was
> >> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
> >> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
> >> mapping."
> >
> >that statement is correct.
> >
> >the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.
>
> Of course they can.

no, they can't.

it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.

apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.

they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
require specially equipped vans.

crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
it *cannot* be used to generate it.

> >go compare what apple has now to what google had when google started.
>
> Why?

because it's the only way to do a fair comparison.

> You talk as if Apple are new guys on the block.

for mapping, they are.

> Apple have been
> around at least 20 years longer than Google, so they should be leading
> the pack instead of playing catch-up

they do in many areas, but how long isn't what matters.

google has been doing maps longer than apple has and it's a mature
product, but unfortunately, apple was forced to find an alternative
before their own map product was ready.

nokia and rim/blackberry were making phones long before apple even
thought about a smartphone. they were the standard to which others were
compared. steve balmer famously laughed at apple trying to make a
phone. look at where they are now.

[sms]

On 7/8/2018 10:53 AM, Chris in Makati wrote:

<snip>

> Why? You talk as if Apple are new guys on the block. Apple have been
> around at least 20 years longer than Google, so they should be leading
> the pack instead of playing catch-up

It's not who has been around the longest. Google was the company that
first realized the advantages of providing free high quality mapping and
navigation in terms of collecting user data and selling advertising.
They saw the migration from stand-alone GPS devices to using phones and
tablets for navigation.

Google also has an inherent advantage in crowd-sourced data because
their user base is much larger. Can you imagine if Microsoft had
attempted to have apps for Windows Phone that depended on crowd-sourced
data?

[nospam]

In article <phugqd$613$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Google also has an inherent advantage in crowd-sourced data because
> their user base is much larger.

most of that 'much larger userbase' isn't sending back any map data,
some of whom may not even have a device with a gps in it.

> Can you imagine if Microsoft had
> attempted to have apps for Windows Phone that depended on crowd-sourced
> data?

google *uses* crowd-sourced data but they do not *depend* on it.

microsoft's bing maps is *extremely* good and its birds-eye view was
*much* better than what google had until the past few years, and google
still hasn't covered all of the areas bing has.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 15:45:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <oug4kdpe53kfc6okv...@4ax.com>, Chris in
>Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I was
>> >> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
>> >> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
>> >> mapping."
>> >
>> >that statement is correct.
>> >
>> >the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.
>>
>> Of course they can.
>
>no, they can't.
>
>it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.
>
>apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.
>
>they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
>designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
>require specially equipped vans.
>
>crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
>it *cannot* be used to generate it.

No. Most of Google Maps was produced by "the crowd". I personally
mapped areas where there was absolutely nothing in existence in remote
parts of the northern Philippines. No roads, so places, nothing.

I still think you totally fail to grasp just how big that world is
outside of the little bit of it you see.

If you think Apple could drive their cars over more than the tiniest
fraction of the world's roads then you have no concept of the enormity
of the task. Even Google have only just scratched the surface of it
with Street View, and they've already been going at it for over 10
years now.

As I keep telling you there is no realistic alternative other than to
rely on local people to map their own communities.

[NY]

"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3309kddespl1r5cd7...@4ax.com...

> If you think Apple could drive their cars over more than the tiniest
> fraction of the world's roads then you have no concept of the enormity
> of the task. Even Google have only just scratched the surface of it
> with Street View, and they've already been going at it for over 10
> years now.
>
> As I keep telling you there is no realistic alternative other than to
> rely on local people to map their own communities.

In countries like the UK where I'm from, I'm always surprised at how rare it
is to find a road that has *not* been visited by the Google car.

But once you get into some of the African and South American countries, I
imagine it's a *very* different story.


Local knowledge is always a good idea, especially where satnav maps are
derived from aerial photos. There is a lane about half a mile from where I
live which used to be a significant through route from one town to another
several centuries ago, but has never been tarmacced (so it's never been
passable to cars) and has huge boulders and deep muddy ruts that are
challenging even for tractors.

However in the early days of route-planning software they tried to route you
that way. I submitted a correction to several mapping sites, to say "despite
appearances from an aerial photo, this lane is totally impassable and should
not be offered as a route".

Likewise for motorway junctions that are no longer used. There's one south
of Maidenhead where there used to be a junction with one road, and then when
the motorway was extended slightly, a new junction was built and the
original junction closed. About forty years later, some route-planners
offered it as a route.

Somewhere I've seen a minor road which crosses a river at a ford, and even
at times of drought it would never be passable by car - far too deep and far
too fast-flowing. I hope no-one's satnav tried to send them that way...

Local knowledge is invaluable.

[nospam]

In article <3309kddespl1r5cd7...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> >> I was
> >> >> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
> >> >> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
> >> >> mapping."
> >> >
> >> >that statement is correct.
> >> >
> >> >the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.
> >>
> >> Of course they can.
> >
> >no, they can't.
> >
> >it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.
> >
> >apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.
> >
> >they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
> >designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
> >require specially equipped vans.
> >
> >crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
> >it *cannot* be used to generate it.
>
> No. Most of Google Maps was produced by "the crowd".

absolutely false.
most of it was produced by google driving around.

> I personally
> mapped areas where there was absolutely nothing in existence in remote
> parts of the northern Philippines. No roads, so places, nothing.

that's great, but you didn't personally do the entire planet nor what
you did have the level of detail apple wants and if there are no roads
there, it doesn't really matter whether it was mapped or not, does it?

> I still think you totally fail to grasp just how big that world is
> outside of the little bit of it you see.

it's very clear that you completely fail to grasp what apple is doing.

it's much more than simple road data and where the local pizza place is
and that's only what they've disclosed publicly.

> If you think Apple could drive their cars over more than the tiniest
> fraction of the world's roads then you have no concept of the enormity
> of the task. Even Google have only just scratched the surface of it
> with Street View, and they've already been going at it for over 10
> years now.

google has more than scratched the surface and apple doesn't need to
drive the entire planet anyway, nor does google or microsoft for that
matter.

> As I keep telling you there is no realistic alternative other than to
> rely on local people to map their own communities.

except that the level of detail they can provide is significantly less
than what apple needs.

[Lewis]

In message <3309kddespl1r5cd7...@4ax.com> Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 15:45:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:

>>In article <oug4kdpe53kfc6okv...@4ax.com>, Chris in
>>Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> I was
>>> >> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
>>> >> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
>>> >> mapping."
>>> >
>>> >that statement is correct.
>>> >
>>> >the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.
>>>
>>> Of course they can.
>>
>>no, they can't.
>>
>>it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.
>>
>>apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.
>>
>>they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
>>designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
>>require specially equipped vans.
>>
>>crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
>>it *cannot* be used to generate it.

> No. Most of Google Maps was produced by "the crowd".

This is entirely 100% in every possible way not true.

--
If I were you boys, I wouldn't talk or even think about women. 'T'ain't
good for your health.

[sms]

On 7/10/2018 8:10 AM, NY wrote:

<snip>

> Somewhere I've seen a minor road which crosses a river at a ford, and
> even at times of drought it would never be passable by car - far too
> deep and far too fast-flowing. I hope no-one's satnav tried to send them
> that way...

Lots of such roads in Hawaii. You don't want to try driving across in a
small car with low clearance.

> Local knowledge is invaluable.

I'm amused when a town that no longer exists still shows up on maps.
<https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1372473,-80.4755016,13.25z>. Andytown
has been gone for 29 years. "The only town in America where there is no
town." It was torn down when the I-75//US27 interchange was constructed.

[sms]

On 7/10/2018 2:58 AM, Chris in Makati wrote:

<snip>

> As I keep telling you there is no realistic alternative other than to
> rely on local people to map their own communities.

It's also useful because as new roads are constructed it's local road
users that are on those roads long before a Google or Apple mapping
vehicle gets around to driving on the new piece of road. After enough
vehicles are seen driving where there was not a road before, the mapping
software picks that up and the maps are updated.

[nospam]

In article <pi3r6t$8m1$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > As I keep telling you there is no realistic alternative other than to
> > rely on local people to map their own communities.
>
> It's also useful because as new roads are constructed it's local road
> users that are on those roads long before a Google or Apple mapping
> vehicle gets around to driving on the new piece of road. After enough
> vehicles are seen driving where there was not a road before, the mapping
> software picks that up and the maps are updated.

once again, it's great for *fixing* errors and changes, but not to
generate the original map data itself, which is more than just road
data.

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:100720182337203047%nos...@nospam.invalid...

A "map" for deciding what route a satnav should suggest only needs to know
how long a road is, what its speed limit is, and what its connections are at
each end - so as to know whether it is better (shorter, quicker) than
another route. The subtleties of whereabouts that road goes, with all the
bends etc, aren't important.

But for human use (eg to display that map on a screen in the car) you need
an accurate record of the road, which means using a GPS trace or an aerial
photo - or even a map supplied by the planners and constructors of the new
road.


A new bypass opened near where I live. The satnav in my wife's car doesn't
know about it, which is not a problem because we know about the road so we
know where to go "off map". But it is a problem when the satnav decides,
apparently at random, to offer one of two alternative routes which take
different times: if it had always suggested one route we'd know that we
always needed to subtract n minutes from the ETA and that the junction where
we turn off is always n miles further than the satnav says. But when you
might be offered one of several routes, it's difficult to know which
corrections to apply.

I downloaded a new map database from Garmin, which took about 9 hours over
our painfully slow 2 Mbps broadband. And when I installed it, I found that
this road still wasn't included in the updated database. It's a shame I
couldn't tell beforehand from Garmin's site what changes were included to
know whether it was worth downloading.

All other maps (Google maps; OS maps used by Android apps such as
Viewranger; Android satnavs such as HereMaps) got the change much quicker.
For some reason Garmin are being very slow about incorporating the new road
and releasing a new version of the map database.


It's always intrigued me how stubborn satnav routing algorithms can be if
you decide to take a detour from the route that it suggests - eg because you
know about traffic jams or long stretches of roadworks with reduced speed
limit. There's one long journey that we make and it suggests going via the
motorway rather than another road. Fine, except that the M1 is blighted by
20-miles stretches of roadworks where there might be a few men working on
one half-mile section but the whole lot is subject to a 50 mph limit. When
we turn off and go the way we know is better, it tries to route us back to
the motorway. Fair enough. But it persists in ever more ludicrous diversions
to get us back, long long after "our" way becomes shorter than "do a U turn
and go back the way you came, to get back onto the motorway". Each time we
do that route, we see how much the ETA and distance to destination will
decrease once the satnav *eventually* decides to route us the way we want to
go.

You'd think that as soon as you ignore a turning, the algorithm would do a
time/distance calculation for the various routes (carry on the way you are
going versus turn round and retrace your steps) and update its suggested
route according to which is now the quickest. But instead it seems to say "I
originally intended you to go my way and I'm determined to get you back onto
it, even if it's much longer than the way you seem to be going".

[Chris in Makati]

Yes it is, and I know so because I was one of the many people who did
it. All Google started off with was basic map data which they bought
in. After that the detail was added by local contributors.

[Chris in Makati]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:32:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <3309kddespl1r5cd7...@4ax.com>, Chris in
>Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> I was
>> >> >> responding to your statement "crowd sourced data is useful in some
>> >> >> cases, such as real-time traffic, but it is not essential for
>> >> >> mapping."
>> >> >
>> >> >that statement is correct.
>> >> >
>> >> >the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.
>> >>
>> >> Of course they can.
>> >
>> >no, they can't.
>> >
>> >it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.
>> >
>> >apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.
>> >
>> >they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
>> >designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
>> >require specially equipped vans.
>> >
>> >crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
>> >it *cannot* be used to generate it.
>>
>> No. Most of Google Maps was produced by "the crowd".
>
>absolutely false.
>most of it was produced by google driving around.

No it wasn't.

Google only started driving their vehicles around roads when they
began their Street View project around 10 years ago. They had already
mapped a large proportion of roads long before that, so obviously
those maps must have been created by a different method.

Google bought in some basic road map data, but for the detailed maps
they released the Google Mapmaker tool. That was a crowd-sourcing
application that allowed volunteer contributors to create road maps
using aerial images. I know you'll probably deny it, so I suggest you
read up on Google Mapmaker before you jump in again and show your
ignorance.

I, along with thousands of other contributors used this tool, and most
of what you see on Google Maps today was created by people like me. We
laboriously traced out roads from aerial maps, and using our local
knowledge marked what we created according to the type of road surface
(asphalted, unpaved, gravel etc).

In addition to the roads themselves, there's an even larger task of
plotting millions of waypoints, landmarks and businesses on those
maps. This is an ongoing process and requires contributions from
volunteers in practically every city, town and village across the
world. Do you really believe Apple has staff permanently based in
every small village in the world to keep that data up to date? Of
course they don't, it's crowd-sourcing that's used to achieve it.

>> I personally
>> mapped areas where there was absolutely nothing in existence in remote
>> parts of the northern Philippines. No roads, so places, nothing.
>
>that's great, but you didn't personally do the entire planet nor what
>you did have the level of detail apple wants and if there are no roads
>there, it doesn't really matter whether it was mapped or not, does it?

Of course I didn't map the whole planet, and that's my whole point.
The task is so enormous that it relies on many thousands of
volunteers, each doing their bit in their local areas. That's what
crowd-sourcing is all about.

[sms]

On 7/11/2018 12:53 AM, NY wrote:

> I downloaded a new map database from Garmin, which took about 9 hours
> over our painfully slow 2 Mbps broadband. And when I installed it, I
> found that this road still wasn't included in the updated database. It's
> a shame I couldn't tell beforehand from Garmin's site what changes were
> included to know whether it was worth downloading.

On the build in GPS in one of our cars, the maps supplied with the car
were already wrong. I wasn't going to buy an updated set of maps,
several years later, which would probably still be wrong!

> All other maps (Google maps; OS maps used by Android apps such as
> Viewranger; Android satnavs such as HereMaps) got the change much
> quicker. For some reason Garmin are being very slow about incorporating
> the new road and releasing a new version of the map database.

Not just maps, also POIs. They will leave POIs in the database for
years, or in some cases more than a decade, after the business no longer
exists. In some cases the building where the business was located is not
even there anymore. "Great, let's go to historic P.J. Mulligans, but
what are these condos doing here?"

> It's always intrigued me how stubborn satnav routing algorithms can be
> if you decide to take a detour from the route that it suggests - eg
> because you know about traffic jams or long stretches of roadworks with
> reduced speed limit. There's one long journey that we make and it
> suggests going via the motorway rather than another road. Fine, except
> that the M1 is blighted by 20-miles stretches of roadworks where there

<snip>

> seems to say "I originally intended you to go my way and I'm determined
> to get you back onto it, even if it's much longer than the way you seem
> to be going".

There's one stretch of I-15 near San Diego where the satnav in my wife's
Toyota goes crazy and repeatedly insists that we make a U-Turn. After
about 5 miles it then decides we are on the proper route after all.

Waze is very good about not trying to put you on route that takes
longer. But I wonder how much of time-savings it needs before it decides
to route you off the freeway onto a maze of side roads.

For both mapping and satnav, crowd sourced data is a critical component.
You can't do accurate maps and routing any other way, something both
Google and Apple clearly understand.

[sms]

On 7/11/2018 7:22 AM, Chris in Makati wrote:

<snip>

> No it wasn't.

<snip>

> Google bought in some basic road map data, but for the detailed maps
> they released the Google Mapmaker tool. That was a crowd-sourcing
> application that allowed volunteer contributors to create road maps
> using aerial images. I know you'll probably deny it, so I suggest you
> read up on Google Mapmaker before you jump in again and show your
> ignorance.

You must be new here.

> I, along with thousands of other contributors used this tool, and most
> of what you see on Google Maps today was created by people like me. We
> laboriously traced out roads from aerial maps, and using our local
> knowledge marked what we created according to the type of road surface
> (asphalted, unpaved, gravel etc).

With Waze, every user is a "volunteer." I've not used Apple Maps on my
iPad so I don't know if they have the same sort of crowd-sourced data
that reroutes you based on traffic conditions.

One thing I didn't realize was an option on Waze was to also base the
route on the availability of HOV lanes and carpool lanes. In California,
if you have a green or white sticker (plug-in hybrid or all electric)
you can use these lanes free (except for some private toll roads in
Southern California). It can be faster to take a longer route in order
to be on a freeway or expressway with HOV lanes.

> In addition to the roads themselves, there's an even larger task of
> plotting millions of waypoints, landmarks and businesses on those
> maps. This is an ongoing process and requires contributions from
> volunteers in practically every city, town and village across the
> world. Do you really believe Apple has staff permanently based in
> every small village in the world to keep that data up to date? Of
> course they don't, it's crowd-sourcing that's used to achieve it.

Well in large cities you have even a greater number of volunteers but
Google and Apple both use the street vans.

Oh, and don't forget Microsoft's effort with Bing Maps, see
<https://www.onmsft.com/news/bing-maps-makes-a-humorous-appearance-in-family-guy>.
Quite amusing.

[nospam]

In article <a74ckdl2mnsumogu1...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >>>> >the crowd cannot do what apple is doing. simple as that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course they can.
> >>>
> >>>no, they can't.
> >>>
> >>>it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.
> >>>
> >>>apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.
> >>>
> >>>they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
> >>>designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
> >>>require specially equipped vans.
> >>>
> >>>crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
> >>>it *cannot* be used to generate it.
> >
> >> No. Most of Google Maps was produced by "the crowd".
> >
> >This is entirely 100% in every possible way not true.
>
> Yes it is, and I know so because I was one of the many people who did
> it. All Google started off with was basic map data which they bought
> in. After that the detail was added by local contributors.

for your area maybe, but not for much the rest of the world, where
google absolutely *does* drive around for the map data.

[nospam]

In article <1r0ckdps7ec0efpth...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:


> >> >
> >> >it's very clear you (and others) don't understand what apple is doing.
> >> >
> >> >apple isn't driving around to fix errors in their existing maps.
> >> >
> >> >they're driving around to gather data for an entirely new map product
> >> >designed from the ground up (no pun intended) which absolutely *does*
> >> >require specially equipped vans.
> >> >
> >> >crowd-sourced data will likely be used to *augment* the base data but
> >> >it *cannot* be used to generate it.
> >>
> >> No. Most of Google Maps was produced by "the crowd".
> >
> >absolutely false.
> >most of it was produced by google driving around.
>
> No it wasn't.

yes it absolutely was.

> Google only started driving their vehicles around roads when they
> began their Street View project around 10 years ago. They had already
> mapped a large proportion of roads long before that, so obviously
> those maps must have been created by a different method.

actually, it wasn't that large back then and street view is done by
(you guessed it), *driving* *around*.

> Google bought in some basic road map data, but for the detailed maps
> they released the Google Mapmaker tool. That was a crowd-sourcing
> application that allowed volunteer contributors to create road maps
> using aerial images. I know you'll probably deny it, so I suggest you
> read up on Google Mapmaker before you jump in again and show your
> ignorance.

i know about mapmaker and have used it.

once again, crowd-sourced data *cannot* provide the level of data that
apple needs, nor does apple need to re-map the entire planet either
because they *already* *have* map data.

you're also completely ignorant of the fact that apple *does* use
crowd-sourced data to fix existing errors in apple maps, but since they
don't own the map data and it's from multiple sources, there isn't much
they can do to fix it other than tell their providers and hope for the
best, which is one reason they're creating their *own* map data.

> I, along with thousands of other contributors used this tool, and most
> of what you see on Google Maps today was created by people like me. We
> laboriously traced out roads from aerial maps, and using our local
> knowledge marked what we created according to the type of road surface
> (asphalted, unpaved, gravel etc).

nobody denies that.

what you *still* do not get is apple wants *more* than just tracing out
roads (which they *already* *have*) and unless you have a specially
equipped van (which you do not) , you *cannot* produce it.

that's why google not only has specially equipped vehicles, but also
portable backpacks:
<https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/-/media/npws/images/campaign-image
s/google-trekker/googletrekker2.jpg>

> In addition to the roads themselves, there's an even larger task of
> plotting millions of waypoints, landmarks and businesses on those
> maps. This is an ongoing process and requires contributions from
> volunteers in practically every city, town and village across the
> world. Do you really believe Apple has staff permanently based in
> every small village in the world to keep that data up to date? Of
> course they don't, it's crowd-sourcing that's used to achieve it.

nobody said they did, nor do they need to do that either.

> >> I personally
> >> mapped areas where there was absolutely nothing in existence in remote
> >> parts of the northern Philippines. No roads, so places, nothing.
> >
> >that's great, but you didn't personally do the entire planet nor what
> >you did have the level of detail apple wants and if there are no roads
> >there, it doesn't really matter whether it was mapped or not, does it?
>
> Of course I didn't map the whole planet, and that's my whole point.
> The task is so enormous that it relies on many thousands of
> volunteers, each doing their bit in their local areas. That's what

> crowd-sourcing is all about.a

except that it cannot produce the data apple needs.

[nospam]

In article <pi57q9$auc$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > I, along with thousands of other contributors used this tool, and most
> > of what you see on Google Maps today was created by people like me. We
> > laboriously traced out roads from aerial maps, and using our local
> > knowledge marked what we created according to the type of road surface
> > (asphalted, unpaved, gravel etc).
>
> With Waze, every user is a "volunteer." I've not used Apple Maps on my
> iPad so I don't know if they have the same sort of crowd-sourced data
> that reroutes you based on traffic conditions.

they do, except that waze is designed for a *very* different use case
than apple or google maps.

[Lewis]

Yes, satellite imaging, public records, and map data the purchased. A
tiny tiny *tiny* amount of it came from people putting map info in to
google maps.

> Google bought in some basic road map data, but for the detailed maps
> they released the Google Mapmaker tool. That was a crowd-sourcing
> application that allowed volunteer contributors to create road maps
> using aerial images. I know you'll probably deny it, so I suggest you
> read up on Google Mapmaker before you jump in again and show your
> ignorance.

No one denies Mapmaker existed. That is a long way from "most the data
came from crowdsourcing" which is just not at all true.

> I, along with thousands of other contributors used this tool, and most

Ooooo, thousands! How impressive. I bet that could cover maybe as much
as 0.1% of the map!

> of what you see on Google Maps today was created by people like me.

Cite?

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's
too dark to read.

[Lewis]

I'm glad you agree.

> and I know so because I was one of the many people who did it.

So what? I bet everyone in this newsgroup did. We just don't delude
ourselves into thinking that the tiny amount of data we contributed
added up to "most" of google maps. The notion is absurd and you've
provided not a shred of evidence other than your own self-aggrandizing.

> All Google started off with was basic map data which they bought in.
> After that the detail was added by local contributors.

A tiny percentage of the data, sure. In some cases, important bits of
map data (like marking roads that did not exist so they could be
removed).

For example, a friend of mine lived up in the mountains, about 45
minutes from the nearest paved road. Google maps had a route to his
house that included a 3 mile stretch of road that did not exist and had
never existed, though it had been planned back in the 1950s, I marked
that in Mapmaker. Six years later, the road was finally removed.

--
The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a young
woman. There was no possible way that she could have been mistaken for a
young man in any language, especially Braille.

[Lewis]

In message <pi55t2$to6$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Waze is very good about not trying to put you on route that takes
> longer. But I wonder how much of time-savings it needs before it decides
> to route you off the freeway onto a maze of side roads.

IME, about 5 minutes.

--
You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?