[massysett]

In a lot of ways, electronic maps are still inferior to the Triptik.

Even the Rand McNally showed highway rest areas and picnic areas. The Triptik also showed gas stations. Electronic maps often lack this entirely, at least in easy form.

The Triptik shows what you need to know while on a long motor trip. The electronic map emphasizes details I don't need.

At a glance the paper map tells me whether a road is free limited-access, toll limited-access, multi-lane divided, two lanes but major, two lanes and minor, a country lane, or a dirt road. Electronic map only tells me this if I zoom in on a satellite view, and it might even route me over a two-lane road to save five minutes on a two-hour trip when there's a much safer freeway that most drivers would prefer.

Paper map has little dotted lines for scenic routes. Electronic map doesn't.

Mostly I'm surprised the electronic maps don't have these things after all these years. Maybe Apple will get them eventually. Google is busy stuffing ads into its maps.

[larrik]

I've been growing pretty dissatisfied with the state of electronic maps. Basic things that are usually either impossible or difficult while using Google Maps or Apple Maps for directions:

- What road am I on? What town am I in?

  - and other flavors of "where the hell am I, anyway?"

  - This is especially annoying when on the phone and the person is asking where you are, and the best you can answer is "Google says I'm X minutes away"

- What road is this coming up next?

  - instead it puts the name halfway along the road, which is out of view...

  - Some of the true nav systems (Garmin, etc) do this better.

[TedDoesntTalk]

There's no way to see a street name on Apple Maps without zooming in entirely. And sometimes even then, I'll see something like Route 99 instead the name by which everyone refers to the road: "Broadway".

[nerdbert]

Google Maps is even worse about this.

Dear Google:

If I have my directions preference set to walking, cycling, or public transit, there is no reason to EVER show me the route number of a street that has a name. I don't care about it, and it actively gets in the way of using the map since it displaces the name, you know, the thing that is actually on the signs that I am looking at with my eyes.

It would be one thing if it showed both the name and the number, but usually you have to pinch and pan so far from where you are before you luck into seeing the name that you've totally lost your orientation on the map.

[stephen_g]

This annoys me too. I've submitted map feedback (holding and tapping 'Report a problem' on the map) before but who knows if that could make much of a difference. I assumed the route numbers are more of an American thing (although your comment seems to imply perhaps not)? We have them here but nobody I know here in Australia uses them or knows them, apart from major motorways. Maybe the other routes are used by truckers? Normal drivers though I would think only care about the street names.

It frustrates me to no end how hard it can be to see the names of streets in Maps, it's one of the most important things!

[larrik]

> I assumed the route numbers are more of an American thing (although your comment seems to imply perhaps not)?

In my area (Connecticut), it depends. Some streets are known by their route numbers, vs some streets have route numbers and most people aren't aware of them at all. It's more common to refer by route number if it's a busy main road that changes name from town to town that it passes through.

Then there's upstate New York, with plenty of streets that are only route numbers, despite being otherwise residential normal roads.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> assumed the route numbers are more of an American thing

Not for streets that go through a town or city and have maximum speeds of 30 mph (48 Kmh). And those are the streets that Maps displays route numbers. I don’t know of truckers using those streets.

[RomanAlexander]

Made even worse by traveling in a country with a language you can't read. sometimes it shows the native language, zoom in it might show an English transliteration. if you're showing it to a taxi driver it'll definitely not show the native language.

[rkagerer]

One thing that drives me nuts on Google Maps is "Search Nearby" doesn't leave your original point of interest (that you're searching around) on the map when showing results. Pretty sure it didn't used to be like this.

[ChuckMcM]

I'm pretty convinced that Google just doesn't understand information economics. In case you haven't noticed, Apple maps are getting better and better and I prefer their turn-by-turn directions over that of Google.

The interesting thing is that Apple now offers "explore" vs "driving" maps, I hope they also add "walking" or "Cycling" maps. And because they aren't driven by advertising sales, the maps can be more useful without compromising sales revenue.

If Apple decided to invest in a crawler/indexer with a search front end to give Siri the data sources for better response, and to allow for "pure" informational search (rather than search-ad/revenue prioritized search), once it got good enough for that it would put Google into a very tight spot. (Well tighter than the one it currently finds itself in).

[criley2]

Apple's solution isn't a serious contender because it's hardware locked to high end devices that the majority of people don't use / can't afford (the demographics of this community not withstanding).

While it's nice that their users can have an alternate first-party experience, that experience is not a publically available map. For example if you go to maps.apple.com you are told "Open this on your Apple Hardware".

(i.e. If 100% of Apple users used Apple Maps, Apple's best case scenario is still #2 in mapping)

[tannhaeuser]

Apple isn't a serious contender because their devices aren't sponsored by tracking/ads? You can also get an iOS device (partly) included with a post-paid mobile plan, can't you?

[lmm]

> Apple isn't a serious contender because their devices aren't sponsored by tracking/ads?

Apple isn't a serious contender because they don't sell anything in the low-end segment. Ferrari make great cars but you can't expect everyone to drive a Ferrari.

> You can also get an iOS device (partly) included with a post-paid mobile plan, can't you?

That acts as a payment plan, but you're still paying the full cost (usually plus interest) one way or another.

[GeekyBear]

A $399 iPhone SE that has gotten seven years of OS updates and is still getting security updates today is as cost effective as several bargain bin devices that have to be quickly replaced.

[efreak]

$400 isn't low-end. The Samsung phone I got from T-Mobile for a one-time payment of $40 after taxes (for trading in a flip phone) is a low end phone. I've been using it for over a year, and I expect to continue using it for at least another year, probably two. At that point, I might just switch to a flip phone, since I spend my money on nice large tablets instead of oversized phones. Hopefully there'll be a decently priced flip phone that'll last more than 2 years.

[lmm]

Maybe. If you have the $399 upfront or the credit rating to get it on a phone contract. If you have anything to spend on buying a phone at all as opposed to having to use whatever hand-me-down device found its way to you.

[sombragris]

About your second response (which is quite right), let me add that in my neck of the woods (and in many others), there's no way to get an iOS device with any postpaid plan, or any other cell phone plan, for that matter.

[criley2]

You literally didn't even quote my point correctly. This is called a strawman and it's extremely low effort and beneath the quality of this community.

Apple Maps isn't a serious contender because 1) it's not public 2) it's not web 3) iOS represents a minority of the world userbase.

Worldwide it's 70% Android and 20% Apple.

And let's not forget that Google Maps is available on iOS and Web. So you have "iOS only" vs "Android/iOS/Web/etc".

Obviously only one of those is a serious competitor.

[ChuckMcM]

One could argue that "most" people[1] have iPhones (at least in the US). And yes it is only 22% world wide. But putting aside the currently available "seats" for a moment, at the point where is it clearly the better product then two things start happening

1) People start buying Apple hardware because it has a better map experience.

2) Apple can produce the iMap device, likely in cooperation with their maps partner TomTom, that people can use to get the Apple Maps experience without changing their phone provider.

[1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share

[mangoleaf]

I live USA, Stanford engineer, have an Android phone and will likely never have an iPhone. My other gender breeding partner has to have an apple, so I use hers at times and am appalled at how difficult things are. But if she can't facetime friends, then she will lose face. I get free phones, and see pays large fees for hers. Sorry, I pass. I work in finance BTW.

[ChuckMcM]

I think that is great. FWIW I worked at Google and still have the original Dream phone in a box somewhere. And while I used iPads since the Android tablet experience never really congealed for me, used an Android phone until the iPhone 13 SE I currently own.

I am also a firm believer that everyone should "vote with their wallet" for the products they want, so no judgement, on my part, on folks who buy one product or the other.

In my experience I find that for every product I buy, the various choices all come with pluses and minuses. I go through that list and apply my own importance rating on each one and come up with my final choice.

My original comment was that Apple Maps are getting better, they were at one time a complete joke. I use maps on my phone all the time, it is probably the largest use of mine after "looking things up on the web" or "communicating" via text or voice. As a result of this improvement in maps, it made this particular choice (for me) a better choice on the iPhone than on an android phone.

I can tell that some people heard my comment above "if you don't own an iPhone you are stupid" or something like that. It certainly wasn't my intent. Never easy to know how something you say will be heard.

My other experience is that products that get "better" overall, supplant, then replace what existed before them. Whether it is TVs, cars, computers, or phones. I still have a Garmin Navigator in my car's glove box but I don't think I have used it in nearly a decade. And yet there was a time when devices of that form were 90+% of the market for "in vehicle navigation."

[freedomben]

While 55% is technically "most", there are hundreds of millions of people in that minority block. Definitely not a number to just dismiss from a function as important as mapping. As a member of that minority, I'm very grateful for non-hardware-locked mapping apps.

[ChuckMcM]

I 100% agree. What I was trying to communicate was that maps is a "feature" of a bigger platform "phone" and can be a discriminator for consumers on purchase. For example a consumer who uses their phone mostly for its maps and driving directions may choose a phone based on their best "maps" experience.

The reference article was discussing a resurgence in "paper" maps, which have three advantages over "electronic" maps that I am aware of; they work when you are "offline", they have specific details of interest, and they "look good."

My observation was that Apple appears to be investing in a better "map" experience on their phones. This resurgence might influence that investment.

Dismissing that observation based on market share is probably unwise. Why? Because market share is a function of serving customer requirements better than the competition. Market share is a reflection of meeting requirements, and in the absence of external forces will result in the brands with doing the best job of meeting requirements ahead of their competitors.

[criley2]

If marketshare is a reflection of meeting customer requirements, then the fact that Google Maps is indisputably #1 and what 10X larger than Apple Maps means that consumers have decided which solution meets their needs the best, right?

For the record, the best data available suggests that only ~50% of iOS users choose the pre-installed built-in Maps versus explicitly downloading the Google Maps app.

One wonders what that number would look like without anti-competitive monopolistic bundling, too. From that perspective, it seems that the "majority of iOS users" would choose Google over Apple Maps, but Apple's anti-competitive behavior has kept it at around 50/50 on their own platform.

[phaedryx]

I've found that when I'm planning things I tend to use Google Maps, but when I get in the car I tend to use Apple maps. I swear there are little differences like Google instructions will be "In X feet... turn right" where Apple is "turn right at the stop sign" which is easier to follow.

[SoftTalker]

Yeah that’s nice but Apple Maps have also routed me down narrow rural roads, occasionally across private property, and proclaimed that I was at my destination when I was looking out the window at a vacant lot. In my experience, Google’s tech is better.

[soperj]

Definitely got routed way out of the way, over a toll bridge when it was completely unnecessary by Apple Maps. I don't use that any more.

[doktorhladnjak]

My take is it turns out this way because Google’s map data is better but Apple’s user experience is better. Google Maps seems to have completely stagnated on both data and user experience whereas Apple seems to be getting better on both fronts all the time. It’s Google’s market to lose.

[thorncorona]

Recently I've found that Google has started to put more effort into this area -- I've started getting directions like "Turn right at the next corner after the Chase bank."

[Fatnino]

That's called an ad

[eCa]

When it comes to cycling maps, I’d recommend checking out cycle.travel[1], its routing (at least over here in EU land) has been awesome. I’ve done a couple of week long trips planned on it.

No affiliation, just a happy user.

[1] https://cycle.travel/map

[kortilla]

>Mostly I'm surprised the electronic maps don't have these things after all these years. Maybe Apple will get them eventually. Google is busy stuffing ads into its maps.

Yeah, google is always going to be trash for anything that doesn’t align well with advertising. Better to show a Starbucks than a rest area, etc.

[dylan604]

so it's the gas station's fault for not buying Google Ads then, right? Google can't possibly be blamed. The don't do evil. It's just the people using their services that do evil things. /s

[colanderman]

Google Maps doesn't even show exit numbers unless you are incredibly zoomed in. They are near useless for at-a-glance visual navigation.

[tokenadult]

My user experience on several recent trips is that Google Maps showed me the exit number for the exit I would use next very prominently on top of the display (where it shows the direction of the next turn). Maybe that isn't rolled out consistently for all trips.

[colanderman]

Context is when you are not using GPS. (Personally I despise being talked at by a computer for an hour, especially one that's bad at directing a driver.)

With paper maps, you can just look at them -- a single page, no pinch zooming or scrolling! -- to see what exit is appropriate for your destination. Not possible with Google Maps -- you either have to zoom in until the exit ramp fills the screen, or make up a fake address near where you're going to get directions which you then have to read through to find the relevant exit. It's a needless frustration when I'm in a hurry and just what to know what exit serves town X.

[wpietri]

I feel you on the talking part. Especially maddening to me is where it talks over an in-progress conversation to tell us things we already know.

I now generally turn the audio part off except for alerts. I like that better, not only is it more soothing, but it forces me to engage my brain a little more.

[nemonemo]

Those two types of maps are targeting different groups -- paper maps targeting the somewhat advanced users who know the basic navigation and have little need to consult the legend. The electronic maps target much wider audience and can be dumbed down since people can interact with the map. Sure, the electronic maps probably can stuff more info to be shown at a glance, but my impression is that they chose not to.

[tuatoru]

> paper maps targeting the somewhat advanced users

Since when did using a map become an "advanced" life skill? Is "Idiocracy" becoming a documentary?

[nerdbert]

I am reliably amazed by how many people are completely unable to read a map these days. I hate turn-by-turn directions and never use them, with the result that I am naturally paying enough attention that I can always find my way back to anywhere I've been. People I travel with, who let themselves be led around from one corner to the next with their nose buried in a screen, can't understand how I do it.

[eternityforest]

Since it became unnecessary for most people? Phones can break, so it's always good to know the paper skills... but it's definitely not an everyday thing anymore.

Besides, even before phones, it was somewhat advanced, they were never easy, as shown by how often people got lost, and still get lost with perfectly functional GPS just by making one bad turn because their memory failed since last time they checked the screen.

[tuatoru]

Next you'll be telling me that people don't know how to darn their socks any more.

[eternityforest]

I'd even argue that darning socks might be more relevant to everyday life than map reading, even though map reading is more important in emergencies and people should probably know both.

If you can darn socks you can probably fix holes in your pants, and if you have a car charger, getting lost happens a lot less than clothes repair, at least in the city.

[worthless-trash]

I dunno man, I think most people would be lost without the iDarn app.

[kortilla]

Some of these things are too annoying to do at scale so they just skipped it rather than choosing to intentionally dumb it down.

Making the call on what is a “scenic route” isn’t something you can just pull directly from highway department data.

[dmurray]

You could predict it from Streetview data though! A small bit of computer vision would go a long way here. Actually this seems like a fun project for someone inside or (if the API is not too throttled) outside Google.

[eternityforest]

Or better yet, when someone drives anywhere, predict if there was a faster way they could have gone, and take that as a candidate scenic view.

[wyclif]

Former land surveyor here. Big fan of paper maps, even though I still use Gaia, FarOut, etc. My faves are the USGS topographical map sets. There's just something you can't replace about the experience of navigating using topo maps and a compass.