What is the practicality of flyover mapping?

[Mad Mac Maniac]

I disagree, when Flyover is available where you want it I think it provides a much better view of the area if you were trying to find somewhere. Take a look at the two attachments below. One is the view from Street View and the other from Flyover. With Flyover not only can you see further but you get a better sense of where you are and you can easily look around the corner without needing to work through multiple points in Street View.

Those images prove a great point. I think they both have benefits and disadvantages. I'll definitely hold off on my opinion till I try it myself.

I would like to see flyover get more detail though. I mean,sure it's pretty good considering it was taken out of an airplane, but look at how the trees are rendered.

For those of you talking about how long it wil take to to build up the 3D images vs street view... Do u really think its easier to drive up and down each street of a city than to pass over it a few times with an airplane? Get real. I honestly think apple is holding back a lot of 3d imagery for some reason. I would be shocked if this was all we had by release. I'm expecting nearly all the US. They may be slower getting out international locations.

 

[Dbrown]

So let me get this straight. You have no idea how a highly detailed birds eye view of a location that you can zoom in on and pan around buildings is useful in a mapping context?

Uhhh... zooming in will look like crap. The model data and textures are captured from an airplane. Zooming in will show muddy low res textures. Just look how awful the tree models and textures look in the picture posted on this first page of this thread.

Maybe you should reserve judgement until you've actually used it then.

Click on the pic posted on the first page. There's freaking tree growing out of the building lol. If I didnt know that pic was from flyover I'd think it was an environment out of a very low budget video game.

 

[baller1308]

I never really used street view and when I did it didn't help. I wonder if instead of driving a car all over the place to get a street view, Apple could gather user submitted data and compile a similar street view angle?

 

[tygrubb]

What this boils down to is that those who relied on Street View will have to just use the web app to continue having access to that particular functionality, unless there is more to Flyover than has been demonstrated (by Apple or people who have posted here). Personally, the way I use Streetview, Flyover as demonstrated cannot replace it (nor could I imagine how it could....it's just a different beast). The point that a lot of us in this thread are making is that Apple has removed a feature from a built-in app and replaced it with a built-in feature that does not make up for what was lost. Those who extensively and productively used the functionality that was not replicated will now have to go outside of the built-in solution. Fortunately, that won't be too difficult, just a little annoying.

 

[GK1]

all My Fingers are not equal and they shouldn't be!

Its all about the next project and complementing whats already been done.
No one Must make an ultimate choice of either one or the other; but if you had to bet, bet on the one that isn't rushing out to be first..just better and best.

I bet they complement each other until one becomes obsolete and then the people who vote, drop the less attractive one like an AOL email address.@.

 

[TLewis]

While flyover is certainly useful to many people, it is, first and foremost, an "oooh, pretty, shiny" marketing feature added to lure people to iOS. Apple adds features for two reasons:

1. To lure people to iOS.
2. To keep people from leaving iOS.

Apple doesn't add expensive features because they're cool.

 

[TLewis]

I disagree, when Flyover is available where you want it I think it provides a much better view of the area if you were trying to find somewhere. Take a look at the two attachments below. One is the view from Street View and the other from Flyover. With Flyover not only can you see further but you get a better sense of where you are and you can easily look around the corner without needing to work through multiple points in Street View.

With streetview, I can read the signs next to the doors of a business. This is something I do quite often.

Can flyover do that? More importantly, can flyover do that in my area, which is basically East Lamefark? (Hint: I'm not in a major metropolitan area.) Streetview does it, and does it at a surprisingly high resolution. Here's an example of how clear signs are in my rural area:

​

Please note that the point of this is to show the clarity and level of detail on streetview. I don't actually care about this particular sign, or the fact that it may or may not be found in new apple maps.

Edit: If you find flyover useful, great. However, please don't tell us that flyover is a complete replacement for streetview.

 

[Johnny Quest]

People who suggest flyover view could somehow be a replacement for street view are forgetting one very important thing: street view covers EVERYWHERE. I've even used it in podunk towns in Mississippi for crist's sake.

I'll bet you anything flyover view will never be expanded to the scope street view is. I mean, sure, it could theoretically be done. But is Apple really going to bother flying planes over every far-flung town across the developed world, when the only reason they're even doing this in the first place is to stick it to Google and attract a few more people to their products with a new gimmick? I bet flyover view never gets expanded beyond major cities. People won't even be talking about it anymore a month after its release.

 

[petsounds]

I disagree, when Flyover is available where you want it I think it provides a much better view of the area if you were trying to find somewhere. Take a look at the two attachments below. One is the view from Street View and the other from Flyover. With Flyover not only can you see further but you get a better sense of where you are and you can easily look around the corner without needing to work through multiple points in Street View.

I would definitely pick the Street View image out of those two choices. People have trouble orienting themselves in 3d space, and transposing what they are seeing to another point in space. Meaning, people are used to looking at buildings -- getting a mental map of the area -- from human height. If you suddenly drag them around above the trees, their mental map breaks down.

See this research paper, Design Applications of Visual Spatial Thinking: The Importance of Frame of Reference for much more in-depth discussion of this topic.

 

[TLewis]

People won't even be talking about it anymore a month after its release.

In all fairness, I'm sure it'll get used, but it'll probably be just like facetime: a feature that relatively few people use.

I think flyover is largely an "oooh, pretty, shiny" feature designed to lure people to iOS.

 

[newagemac]

I don't think anyone ever said that Flyover was a Street View replacement. And Street View certainly can't replace Flyover either if your device doesn't have Flyover. Just like a hammer can't replace a screwdriver. They are two different things.

 

[steve-p]

I don't think anyone ever said that Flyover was a Street View replacement. And Street View certainly can't replace Flyover either if your device doesn't have Flyover. Just like a hammer can't replace a screwdriver. They are two different things.

Apple presumably thinks flyover is a street view replacement. I just wonder if they are actually going to warn the millions of average users who don't read tech blogs that they will lose street view and transit directions if they upgrade to iOS 6. I think I can guess the answer to that question, and it may not go too well.

 

[virginblue4]

People who suggest flyover view could somehow be a replacement for street view are forgetting one very important thing: street view covers EVERYWHERE. I've even used it in podunk towns in Mississippi for crist's sake.

Yes and I think you're forgetting that when street view first came out it also had just as limited coverage. Give it time and flyover will catch up.

 

[newagemac]

Apple presumably thinks flyover is a street view replacement. I just wonder if they are actually going to warn the millions of average users who don't read tech blogs that they will lose street view and transit directions if they upgrade to iOS 6. I think I can guess the answer to that question, and it may not go too well.

Transit directions will be in iOS6. They already confirmed that in the Keynote. I don't think very many people used Street View. The 3D maps could possibly get more use than that. And if so, your device not having Apple's 3D maps with flyover could be a liability instead of what you are suggesting. But we don't know which one will be more important because iOS6 hasn't been released and no one has been able to try the released version yet to make that determination.

But even still, you can use Street View on maps.google.com and Google is possibly going to include their maps in the App Store as well. But how are you going to use flyover and Apple's 3D Maps without iOS6? That's a more interesting question.

 

[Saladinos]

In Street View I am able to do a 360 of my surrounding area to see where exactly I am based on on the fronts of buildings. Furthermore, I find the actual street level view to be FAR more useful. If I am walking around a city trying to find a store, with Street View I can see that "Oh, the Apple store is right next to the Rite Aide," or something similar. With Flyover, the view will be at an angle, making it harder to see specific store fronts.

Perhaps the time Street View comes most in handy is when planning a trip. With Street View, before I depart, I am able to see the what my destination looks like and the places next to it. With Flyover, I cannot do this. Sure, I can get a birds-eye view, but it doesn't replace a street-level view, considering that I too will be on street level.

Finally, it will take YEARS, if it at all, for Flyover coverage to match Street View's.

Flyover has its uses; however, Street View and Flyover and not interchangable.

I disagree. Flyover doesn't give a birds-eye view, it gives a complete 3d view of the building. You can see it from any angle you like. It's close to street level, but provides far more context and is much easier to navigate. The best thing about it is that it clearly already benefits from high resolution textures (you'd be surprised how much ground-level stuff you can read). That will only get better.

It's also much better for browsing, which from my experience is a pretty big use-case. That is: I get this address, and I want to see what it looks like. Maybe a bit of the surrounding areas, too (maybe I'm house-hunting, as an example).

I dont think it will take years to match street-view. Going from the Nokia 3d maps (also using C3, before apple bought them), I can see for example that a massive area of London is in high resolution 3D (not just the centre, but also pretty far out in to the suburbs).

I agree with the previous poster that it's likely much faster and more cost-effective to map an area from the air than on the ground, which should mean more accurate, better quality maps covering more of the planet. Partnering with airlines sounds like a great idea, but they mostly fly at too high an altitude (one would think).

If Apple get behind maps it could be great. This new apple seems to have taken a liking to short-term bulletpoint features rather than building a platform full of excellence, so that's not a given. The good news is that this is part of iOS6 rather than the iPhone 5 - hopefully Apple will continue to work on it.

There are some tweaks that could really improve the experience - raised objects like tree-tops and bridges seem tricky right now, and cars are occasionally kept flat (although sometimes not). Apple could work that stuff out, with the motivation of having a street-level 3D model of the earth (what an enormous asset that would be!).

 

[The Phazer]

I disagree. Flyover doesn't give a birds-eye view, it gives a complete 3d view of the building. You can see it from any angle you like. It's close to street level.

It's literally not even close, especially in built up areas. What are you saying?

Phazer

 

[Ljohnson72]

It's literally not even close, especially in built up areas. What are you saying?

Phazer

This is exactly my point. This has already been beaten to death; Flyover certainly has it uses, but it is NOT a full replacement for Street View.

Additionally, I think it will indeed take quite some time for Apple to fly planes over the entire country, and even more so for additional parts of the world. Just look at the coverage of Street View: http://gmaps-samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/streetview_landing/streetview-map.html . There is NO way Apple is going to cover that much territory (look at the current list of where Flyover is available), compile the data, then push it to Flyover, in a short time period.

 

[Vegastouch]

I guess this will help Spiderman.

Santa as well

 

[Saladinos]

It's literally not even close, especially in built up areas. What are you saying?

Phazer

Check out Nokia's Ovi 3D maps on your desktop (plugin required). Uses the same C3 data, but includes more places (like Europe!). Some cities seem to map better than others. Have a browse around, and I'm sure you'll come to like it.

Hosestly, I always found street view awkward to use - moving around a static sphere, then clicking arrows back and forward along static, predefined paths. I find flyover a lot better than that, and it gives me the same semantic information (I.e. what does this place looks like? How big is it? The one-way system looks a little awkward, what does it look like? Etc).

No, you can't read road signs from flyover, but you can read things like building signage and ease of using the 3D view helps you understand what you needed to know faster, IMO.

 

[Dbrown]

Check out Nokia's Ovi 3D maps on your desktop (plugin required). Uses the same C3 data, but includes more places (like Europe!). Some cities seem to map better than others. Have a browse around, and I'm sure you'll come to like it.

I've used ovi maps and it looks like crap. The buildings look like they're melting and the textures are horribly distorted and low res.

The data is captured from an airplane... so of course it will only look good from a birds eye view. Use some common sense!

 

[Saladinos]

I've used ovi maps and it looks like crap. The buildings look like they're melting and the textures are horribly distorted and low res.

The data is captured from an airplane... so of course it will only look good from a birds eye view. Use some common sense!

Multiple airplane captures from different angles, actually. It's not a birds-eye capture. That's satellite view.

Of course it's not going to look exactly as in real life, but it's damn impressive. The only melting I see is with raised objects like trees and bridges. It's possible that better image data and tweaked algorithms could significantly improve this.

The algorithms used are declassified missile targeting algorithms. It's not as simple as you put it.

 

[Dbrown]

I picked a random street in San Francisco. Anyone who thinks this is impressive needs to get their eyes checked.

Flyover will look the same.

 

[Yr Blues]

I love street view but I can't see how it can be updated even bi-yearly. That's a lot of freakin' miles to cover.

 

[212rikanmofo]

This is exactly my point. This has already been beaten to death; Flyover certainly has it uses, but it is NOT a full replacement for Street View.

Additionally, I think it will indeed take quite some time for Apple to fly planes over the entire country, and even more so for additional parts of the world. Just look at the coverage of Street View: http://gmaps-samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/streetview_landing/streetview-map.html . There is NO way Apple is going to cover that much territory (look at the current list of where Flyover is available), compile the data, then push it to Flyover, in a short time period.

The technolgy behind what Apple acquire doesn't take long to generate 3d maps for entire cities as you'd think. Watch the video about how the technology works to get an understanding. A plane, helicopter, or UAV can fly over the city with a camera attached, and once that's finished, all the images are exported over to the computer, that's where most of the action happens. It can generate the city in a matter of hours.

Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CNemPTHOKWg


----------

I love street view but I can't see how it can be updated even bi-yearly. That's a lot of freakin' miles to cover.

That would take forever. Driving around with cameras mounted to cars vs flying a plane with a camera for 3d flyover.

----------

I picked a random street in San Francisco. Anyone who thinks this is impressive needs to get their eyes checked.

Flyover will look the same.


Image

That's Nokia's implementation of 3d fly-over mode. I'm sure Apple has better standards than that.

 

[Ljohnson72]

The technolgy behind what Apple acquire doesn't take long to generate 3d maps for entire cities as you'd think. Watch the video about how the technology works to get an understanding. A plane, helicopter, or UAV can fly over the city with a camera attached, and once that's finished, all the images are exported over to the computer, that's where most of the action happens. It can generate the city in a matter of hours.

Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CNemPTHOKWg

Pretty cool video. I really do like the Flyover technology and it certainly does have its place, but it's just not Street View. A quick calculation shows that to cover all of America, Apple would have to be flying airplanes over the country 24/7 for about 4,000 days straight We'll see how it turns out when iOS 6 finally comes out.