iMaps still this bad?

[Assault]

OK, I found an old iPod Touch 4th gen sitting in storage and charged it up, downloaded iTunes (ugghh), and updated the ipod to iOS 6.1.3. So now I have what is basically a new, off the showroom floor ipod. I haven't played with iOS in a couple of years, so there was a learning curve. Spent the last few hours cursing at the OS for having to click the stupid home button a million times, cursing the iPod for not having a back button and of course cursing iTunes. (Although, I will admit that it has gotten better in terms of getting files into iTunes from a PC.)

Once I got everything squared away, I wanted to see if iMaps (I don't give a crap if Apple named it Maps, I'm calling it iMaps) had gotten any better. So I went to L.A. and this is what iPhone users think is fine or better than Google Maps or even Waze? I seriously don't get why you would use this? Completely and utterly unacceptable. And this is L.A. I picked, one of the largest cities in the world, so if Apple can't get it right here, I can't imagine how bad it is elsewhere?

First image is on iOS with traffic turned on and second image is Google Maps. Which do you think would be more helpful?

 

[Assault]

Here is a major interchange on the I10 and 101 Freeways (aka motorways) and surrounding streets. With imaps, i have no clue what exit I should avoid.

 

[Assault]

I want to see a clise up of Dodger Stadium and where a good place to sit might be. With iMaps, I couldn't even zoom in close enough.

 

[Internaut]

Go off the beaten path, and it gets worse. On a recent business trip to Abidjan (Cote d'Ivoire, West Africa), I had my Samsung S3, Nokia 720 and iPad Mini side by side. Google and Nokia both had pretty decent maps of the surrounding area. Apple's maps only had main roads, without names.

 

[irnchriz]

I want to see a clise up of Dodger Stadium and where a good place to sit might be. With iMaps, I couldn't even zoom in close enough.

Dunno what you were using, here is Dodger Stadium on my ipad.

 

[Assault]

Dunno what you were using, here is Dodger Stadium on my ipad.

I have no idea? I am on the latest iOS release, and all of my apps say they are updated. I used the newest version of itunes to set up my 4th gen ipod.

Maybe someone can tell me why. Like i said, I haven't used ios in 2 years.

 

[irnchriz]

And from my iPhone

Maybe you should go troll elsewhere.

 

[Fernandez21]

In imaps, it only shows you if there is traffic, so if there are no red markings then there is no traffic ,(just like when they are green in Google maps)

What's cool too is if you click those red touch points it will give you information on what is going on in that area.

 

[strausd]

In imaps, it only shows you if there is traffic, so if there are no red markings then there is no traffic ,(just like when they are green in Google maps)

What's cool too is if you click those red touch points it will give you information on what is going on in that area.

Ya having green everywhere is just visual clutter. All you really need to see is if there is traffic. Plus Apple Maps give accident reports and construction reports.

 

[Assault]

And from my iPhone

Maybe you should go troll elsewhere.

This is not "trolling". I use a Nike+ Fuelband and Nike Running app every day and up until now, had to plug it into my PC to download the data (since Tim Cook vetoed the Android initiative).
Now that I have an iOS device, I can do it wirelessly, which I really like, since I am not always home to plug my fuel and into my PC. That is the only reason I am going to keep this iPod. But I was curious about iMaps. Maybe I am doing something wrong or maybe it is still a beta product, and maybe, just maybe someone could tell me what I was or wasn't doing correctly.

----------

Ya having green everywhere is just visual clutter. All you really need to see is if there is traffic. Plus Apple Maps give accident reports and construction reports.

I can see your point about green everywhere. But on the flip side, if there is just an orange road everywhere, how do I know if there is or isn't traffic coverage? Not every road has data.

I do like the accident and construction indicators though. Apple beats Google on that. Probably why Google bought out Waze.

----------

In imaps, it only shows you if there is traffic, so if there are no red markings then there is no traffic ,(just like when they are green in Google maps)

What's cool too is if you click those red touch points it will give you information on what is going on in that area.

Yep, I noticed that and really like that. Def reminded me of Waze.

 

[jamojamo]

If you are really looking for an answer you might want to try posting in the iPod forum. Maybe someone else has experienced that issue.

 

[cnev3]

Why mess with apple maps when Google Maps is available?

 

[Assault]

Why mess with apple maps when Google Maps is available?

I wanted to use iMaps for myself and compare. I'll still be using Google Maps, Latitude and Nav though, since Google has never led me astray.
But I do like Apple's crowd sourcing initiative to let you know what is causing traffic, instead of just giving me a red line. I really look forward to Google instituting Waze into Maps/Nav.

 

[Todd B.]

Apple Maps were never bad. A couple bloggers decided to generate some link bait by creating a phoney controversy, sure, but there was never any REAL issue.

(Though, honestly, given the number of Google slanted articles in tech blogs I wouldn't be surprised if Google had a hand in planting some of the stories.)

 

[sentinelsx]

When it comes to local points of interest and shops/businesses/establishments on the roads, google maps tends to out do apple maps a lot of times in my experience. I also prefer the navigation mode of gmaps.

I accidentally opened apple maps once to navigate to somewhere without realizing, my first clue should have been the data input UI, but once it started navigating i was like "what the heck is this doing?" and realized what i was using.

It remains in the "poo" folder of my iPhone

 

[Prototypical]

Apple Maps were never bad. A couple bloggers decided to generate some link bait by creating a phoney controversy, sure, but there was never any REAL issue.

Apple Maps can't find the grocery store I've been going to for the past two years (and have submitted for updates on three separate occasions), and it sent me to someone's house instead of the local small-engine shop I was trying to find. Every time it leaves me out-to-dry, Google Maps saves the day. I live in the U.S., so I'm not willing to give Apple the pass I give them on international mapping.

The application itself is beautiful and functional - IF - you have an address to plug in. The location database is abysmal at best, though.

 

[Todd B.]

Apple Maps can't find the grocery store I've been going to for the past two years (and have submitted for updates on three separate occasions), and it sent me to someone's house instead of the local small-engine shop I was trying to find. Every time it leaves me out-to-dry, Google Maps saves the day. I live in the U.S., so I'm not willing to give Apple the pass I give them on international mapping.

The application itself is beautiful and functional - IF - you have an address to plug in. The location database is abysmal at best, though.

I've never had an issue with directions using Apple Maps. That sounds like a user problem and not an Apple problem.

The whole Apple Maps "problem" was just a testament to how much of a joke the tech community has become.

 

[sentinelsx]

I've never had an issue with directions using Apple Maps. That sounds like a user problem and not an Apple problem.

The whole Apple Maps "problem" was just a testament to how much of a joke the tech community has become.

Right, the grocery store is "selling it wrong".

 

[Prototypical]

I've never had an issue with directions using Apple Maps. That sounds like a user problem and not an Apple problem.

The whole Apple Maps "problem" was just a testament to how much of a joke the tech community has become.

So because you've never managed to search for something that Apple Maps couldn't find, that makes everyone who has, incompetent? Are you seriously that ignorant?

Like I said - if you can enter the actual address of the location you're looking for, Apple Maps does a fine job. But if you don't know what the address is, the search function for POIs is hit-or-miss at best in a LOT of locations. The results are getting better, but still not dependable.

For example, if I look for the grocery store in question, this is what I get:

"Hyvee Omaha" - Finds a number of Hyvees, but not mine
"Hyvee" - Successful, but only shows three of the stores in town (out of 12)
"Hyvee Pacific (street it is on)" - takes me to the Phillipines
"Hy-Vee" - finds the store I submitted, but only if I'm zoomed into the area that I know it's in (otherwise, no results)
"Hy-Vee Pacific" - No results found

Hy-Vee is the actual, correct spelling of the store (on 178th and Pacific). So the only way to find the grocery store in question is to be generic, have some idea of where it is, and spell the store incorrectly.

...And I'm clearly the one doing it wrong.

 

[oneMadRssn]

A few years ago, I was on a team that did extensive testing that compared various providers' traffic data. Although this was about two years ago, I am pretty sure that when it comes to traffic data, not much has changed. UIs got prettier, but the source of data and managing that data has not changed.

We found that Google's data sucked. Specifically, there were way too many false positives. This means GMaps routes you around traffic that isn't really there. As a user, we thought this was a neutral user-experience. Although your drive was longer (negative) because of the detour, overall you thought that you avoided traffic (positive); and there was no way for you to know whether that detour was necessary. Still, in terms of real-world traffic accuracy, a false-positive is still a bad thing to have, and GMaps has tons of them.

Viacom's RDS-TMC (most called "lifetime traffic" in most PNDs) also sucked because the resolution was terrible. The road segments were not granular enough, and they only had coverage of major roads and highways. This was mostly due to the bandwidth contraint of FM-signals. By far, the worst of the group.

TomTom's newer OpenLR-based traffic system was the best. This is probably why Apple chose it as their source. The granularity was enough, and they had the lowest occurance of false-positives and false-negatives. Basically, it never told us about traffic that wasn't there, and it rarely failed to warn us about upcoming traffic. (To those that own TomTom PNDs, only the expensive "Live" units take advantage of this data.)

Navteq's service was also good, but not as good. Better than Gmaps. (Similar to above PNDs, only the expensive Garmin "HD Traffic" devices take advantage of this data.)

Notably absent was Waze, it was on our radar but not significantly enough back then. Today, I would have also included Waze in the comparison.

In sum, despite Apple Map's other issues, I think they went with the most accurate traffic provider. What their routing algorithm does with that information later might still not be so good. But I am confident that the data they start with is the best available. Otherwise, if you want to go on lots of uneccessary detours, GMaps is the way to go.


TL;DR: Google traffic sucks. It has pretty colors and lots of traffic to display that isn't actually there, but as a driver you wouldn't know it's not there because it routed you around it, so you gleefully take the longer route.

 

[aristobrat]

TL;DR: Google traffic sucks. It has pretty colors and lots of traffic to display that isn't actually there, but as a driver you wouldn't know it's not there because it routed you around it, so you gleefully take the longer route.

I've noticed that a few times around where I live. Google Maps will show parts of the interstate as red, but checking the traffic cameras for the same area shows the traffic moving at near normal speeds.

Wasn't sure if the state was feeding Google bad information, or if Google was just slow updating correct information.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I've noticed that a few times around where I live. Google Maps will show parts of the interstate as red, but checking the traffic cameras for the same area shows the traffic moving at near normal speeds.

Wasn't sure if the state was feeding Google bad information, or if Google was just slow updating correct information.

I can assure you it happens all over. We tested quite a few cities.

I can only speculate about why it happens. In terms of public data, they all get the same source public data so I doubt it's that the differentiating issue. Also, I can tell you that in general public data is horrible, which is why all these companies sell their own privately sourced data. At least for highways, a big source of private data are commercial fleet vehicles: 18-wheelers, delivery trucks, repair vans, commercial vans, etc. That data is usually pretty good.

I think that google views false positives as user-neutral, and false negatives as user-negative, and therefore cranks their algorith to prevent as many false-negatives as possible at the expense of creating false-positives. As I explained above, to the average user, this is still a seemingly decent experience. So, from speculation, I think Google purposely clears traffic jams slower.

Another reason could be unreliable clears. How many Android devices do they want to see drive through the traffic at regular speed in order to clear it? 1? 5? 10? 100? Maybe Android hardware isn't so reliable in terms of data granularity, so they want more datapoints to be sure the traffic is truly gone before clearing it from the map. Maybe this number is so high that it rarely reaches the threshold.

 

[takeshi74]

Maps still this bad?

Subjective matter just as good/bad is on any topic. Use what works for you. Why does it matter what others with differing preferences and priorities choose to use? Why do you feel the need to grind this axe? Your attitude is precisely why you were accused of trolling.

Wasn't sure if the state was feeding Google bad information, or if Google was just slow updating correct information.

There's no guarantee that your state is even feeding data to Google (just as a general comment -- I ahve no idea what state you're in). I wish more nav apps would use our local highway traffic data as it is very reliable since it reads toll tags and bluetooth devices but AFAIK only the transit agency actually uses that data.

 

[aristobrat]

There's no guarantee that your state is even feeding data to Google (just as a general comment -- I ahve no idea what state you're in).

VA.

If the city/states aren't feeding them and they're getting the info from "crowdsourcing" delivery vans, semis, etc, ... that could be an explanation for why they're not as accurate as what the state shows.

 

[kaielement]

I tried the google map app on iOS and found that I was constantly giving me bad directions so now I use Apple maps and have had no issues. So I don't know if that means anything lol.