Google Maps web mapping change

[Steven]

I'm sure with the appropriate settings in the renderer (Mapnik) someone could make motorways blue again, but then they'd have to host the map tiles...

It's quite possible, yes.

[Chris5156]

Definitely an improvement, IMO - the previous colour scheme rendered most roads in white against a very pale grey background, which was appallingly low contrast. It was difficult to see on a computer screen, and impossible when using Google Maps as a satnav. It always felt to me like a major design failure. The new colour scheme isn't beautiful or inspiring - it's mostly muddy blues and greys, and I've no affection for it at all - but you can at least see roads clearly against the background now which is good.

[Nwallace]

Why use Google maps when the best mapping in the world is on sabre maps, nls and bing maps?

I noted you can now select current OS leisure on NLS side by side now, but thats OT.

Google maps is only any use as a sat nav and since it seems to think I can get from feuchie to Dundee in 35 mins with the current traffic when the Panasonic system in my Toyota says 1hr and 10, which makes it pretty useless.

Sent from my IV2201 using Tapatalk

[jervi]

OSM used to make motorways blue. The project started in the UK. Then when it became an international project there was pressure to make it uniform across the world. I'm sure with the appropriate settings in the renderer (Mapnik) someone could make motorways blue again, but then they'd have to host the map tiles...

https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/m ... 06/-1.5656

This map uses a modified version of the original OSM colour scheme, which also shows Walking & Cycling Relations as purple. And motorways as blue of course!

[Herned]

Google maps is only any use as a sat nav and since it seems to think I can get from feuchie to Dundee in 35 mins with the current traffic when the Panasonic system in my Toyota says 1hr and 10, which makes it pretty useless.

That's interesting. I have it on all the time now for longer journeys, even when I know where I'm going for traffic delays, and it is always very accurate. I am puzzled why it keeps offering alternative routes which are slower though, that seems a bit odd

[SJobson]

Google have the best traffic data I think - the most accurate due to number of Google product users, constantly updated and accurate. So I rely on it in the car, which means I rely on Google Maps. I guess I could switch to Waze since it is part of Google and must share the traffic data but that does not allow you to zoom out and stay zoomed out when used on Carplay.

When looking at maps on my computer, I look at everything I can which may be relevant - OSM, Google, OS maps, NLS and Sabre for older maps, Bing for alternative aerial photos and sometimes useful bird's eye view (the images being the best part of 20 years old is quite useful sometimes if there is coverage) and things like Magic Maps (still), local planning authority maps and the Land Registry Mapsearch (which I am lucky to have access to professionally). Google still tends to be the first one I click on out of habit, before getting frustrated at not being able to see a railway line or whatever and bringing up the OS maps

[FosseWay]

Round me at least, Google is also more accurate than various other sat nav providers. I live at the end of a cul-de-sac. My nearest neighbour lives at the end of another cul-de-sac. The ends of the two roads are about 50 horizontal and 15 vertical metres apart; there is a footpath with steps between them. Unlike with many former ratruns, there has never been a drivable road between them. Yet enough sat nav systems claim you can drive down the steps for it to be a problem for delivery drivers and others who don't know the area. If given the opportunity when ordering stuff or confirming a delivery, I tend to write in the comments "Use Google Maps for navigation".

[ForestChav]

I actually prefer it, though I had to look on a computer to see the view without the satellite and traffic which is how I usually look at it.

The main roads stand out more than the minor ones though you can still see those but at a lesser weight, and there's plenty of contrast from the background colour.

What I didn't like so much is that there does appear to be only two classifications of roads, and that anything which is an A-road or motorway (irrespective of whether the former is local authority or trunk or primary) is given the heavier colour and the B-roads and unclassified are given the lighter one, I guess we're used to the whole blue > green > red > orange > yellow colour scheme on other maps (or variants thereof) but it would be nice to see motorways at the very least differentiated. With no A-road differentiation it'd also show something like the A66 and A69 as equal to the A689 and A684 crossing the Pennines too, which anyone who has done those would realise isn't the case on the actual roads (which is why the former are primary and the latter not).

[Chris Bertram]

What I didn't like so much is that there does appear to be only two classifications of roads, and that anything which is an A-road or motorway (irrespective of whether the former is local authority or trunk or primary) is given the heavier colour and the B-roads and unclassified are given the lighter one ...

From what I'm seeing *primary* A-roads and motorways have the heavier colour, while non-primary and unclassified roads have the lighter colour, though even then A-roads are broader than B-roads which are broader than unclassified. Whether they've got all of that right I don't know, but that does seem to be the intention.

[Helvellyn]

What I didn't like so much is that there does appear to be only two classifications of roads, and that anything which is an A-road or motorway (irrespective of whether the former is local authority or trunk or primary) is given the heavier colour and the B-roads and unclassified are given the lighter one ...

From what I'm seeing *primary* A-roads and motorways have the heavier colour, while non-primary and unclassified roads have the lighter colour, though even then A-roads are broader than B-roads which are broader than unclassified. Whether they've got all of that right I don't know, but that does seem to be the intention.

There are variations in width but only those two colours. Zoomed in dual carriageways are noticeable due to the width but indistinguishable from motorways.

There's also an oddity in that some paths show up as dotted lines (undotted zoomed in), but are visible at a greater level of zoomed out than various minor roads, so if they start or end on one they appear to just start in the middle of nowhere.

The greater contrast is an improvement but the colours themselves are depressingly drab and there needs to be a greater range of colour - I'll keep banging the drum about motorways at the very least. I wish they'd drop the idea that the entire world has to be coloured consistently (although as upthread demonstrates that's not a problem confined to Google Maps).

[FosseWay]

I wish they'd drop the idea that the entire world has to be coloured consistently (although as upthread demonstrates that's not a problem confined to Google Maps).

I don't know how realistic it would be to colour different countries' roads differently. I don't suppose the technical work to get it to display would be hugely problematic, though it would clearly take more resources than the current one-colour scheme-fits-all approach. They do after all change units depending on whether you're in the UK/US or elsewhere. More of a problem is the fact that a given colour can mean one thing in one country and something else somewhere else. Some countries (hello Sweden) don't even have a colour scheme that differentiates between "motorways" and "other roads"; E-roads are signed in green and other national roads in blue, regardless of their size, quality or any restrictions on who may use them. I wonder whether doing this would generate more complaints from confused motorists who drive on blue roads in Italy expecting them to be motorways, for example.

Personally it doesn't particularly bother me that motorways specifically are not differentiated; this may simply be because I know where the motorways go, so I just don't need to use any kind of map to find my way around on the motorway network. In fact, I would far rather that mapping services differentiated between "major roads" and others, where "major" is a relative term. Clearly motorways and most dual carriageways would qualify by default, but more generally I'd prefer to see the main recommended/obvious route for motor vehicles between towns of a reasonable size marked in a different way from any other roads, independent of classification or who's responsible for their upkeep. If the road in question is a B-road, so be it. Basically I want to know what the recommended route for driving is if I want to get there as quickly as possible, and I also want to know which route is recommended for cars so I can avoid it if I'm on foot or cycling. But I appreciate I may be unusual in this.

[the cheesecake man]

Why use Google maps

GSV

[multiraider2]

Yes an improvement on the white on near white for most roads on it as previously, rendering them invisible unless scrolled in. But I only use it for quick route time reckoning and street view in any case. Of course Sabre Maps and of course the OS with whom I have a subscription and as much as I hate myself for it, I went without paper maps for this year's holidays.

[Ruperts Trooper]

I'm glad it changed - the old version was unusable as a satnav, IMO - I used Waze but their traffic information isn't as good as Google Maps so it's time to switch back for me.

[FosseWay]

...much as I hate myself for it, I went without paper maps for this year's holidays.

TBH I've been in that situation for several years now. This year's holiday was the exception: we were walking in the Alps, and if you suddenly lose your digital mapping in the mountains it can be directly dangerous, so we did have proper paper maps.

Apart from questions of safety if I'm hiking in remote places, what decides whether I bother buying paper maps is the quality of said mapping. OS, Swiss and Austrian maps are good-looking and thus in themselves constitute a valuable souvenir of a trip. Less aesthetically interesting maps, or ones which don't include the kind of detail I'm after given my normal holiday activities, I tend not to bother with.

[NICK 647063]

I actually prefer it, though I had to look on a computer to see the view without the satellite and traffic which is how I usually look at it.

The main roads stand out more than the minor ones though you can still see those but at a lesser weight, and there's plenty of contrast from the background colour.

What I didn't like so much is that there does appear to be only two classifications of roads, and that anything which is an A-road or motorway (irrespective of whether the former is local authority or trunk or primary) is given the heavier colour and the B-roads and unclassified are given the lighter one, I guess we're used to the whole blue > green > red > orange > yellow colour scheme on other maps (or variants thereof) but it would be nice to see motorways at the very least differentiated. With no A-road differentiation it'd also show something like the A66 and A69 as equal to the A689 and A684 crossing the Pennines too, which anyone who has done those would realise isn't the case on the actual roads (which is why the former are primary and the latter not).

If you zoom out the non primary roads are a much lighter line than the primary, then some A roads are bolder still, the A69 and A64 for example are a much darker thicker line like the motorways, yet the A66 and some others aren’t, this was always the case with the other google maps….

[Helvellyn]

I wish they'd drop the idea that the entire world has to be coloured consistently (although as upthread demonstrates that's not a problem confined to Google Maps).

I don't know how realistic it would be to colour different countries' roads differently...

At one point they did.

[JammyDodge]

What I have noticed is that when you zoom right in on a motorway, it sometimes shows the lanes. I was looking at the A16 near Calais (as a result of another thread) when I noticed it.

Oh wow.
From a random sample, it seems the French Autoroute network has been mapped with lanes. Same for the German Autobahn, Danish and most of Sweden's network

[Chris5156]

What I have noticed is that when you zoom right in on a motorway, it sometimes shows the lanes. I was looking at the A16 near Calais (as a result of another thread) when I noticed it.

Oh wow.
From a random sample, it seems the French Autoroute network has been mapped with lanes. Same for the German Autobahn, Danish and most of Sweden's network

I'm not seeing that, on either desktop or mobile - where are you looking?

[JammyDodge]

What I have noticed is that when you zoom right in on a motorway, it sometimes shows the lanes. I was looking at the A16 near Calais (as a result of another thread) when I noticed it.

Oh wow.
From a random sample, it seems the French Autoroute network has been mapped with lanes. Same for the German Autobahn, Danish and most of Sweden's network

I'm not seeing that, on either desktop or mobile - where are you looking?

I can see it on desktop and mobile which is interesting. Although I have seen this mapping change for about 1 month now. See below:
A11/A81 Junction outside Le Mans

E20/E6 cloverleaf outside of Malmo