Flyover can let you see over the city and look at interesting things and is fast. In my experience street view tends to link to the wrong buildings.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What is the practicality of flyover mapping?
- Thread starter b24pgg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
It was rendering in real time. Meaning it wasn't a video. The images aren't constantly updating.
Street View's data is usually so old and the coverage is so spotty that its generally useless for me.
----------
Exactly! Just saw your post.
Street View is not useful when driving. Flyover is great when driving. There is a major difference between them.
The solid blue areas (not dots) are covered areas. This is spotty? More like mind-boggling, that they've covered so much.
Besides, the flyover view in my opinion is worse than something like a close third-person view. I bet someone at Google right now is working to implement a seamless Streetview navigation mode, a la augmented reality.
Yes, Street View is very spotty. Those maps are worse than the 3G converge maps by the carriers as far as what they have listed on a map versus the actual truth of the matter. For instance, they have the entire United States covered in blue but in my hometown there is a TON of streets that are not found. They consider if a city has been mapped at all, then they mark it on the map as being covered which is entirely misleading.
The worst thing of all about Street View though is that it is very limiting. You can't really move around in it. You have to follow specific streets/paths and it is maddeningly slow to navigate. Whereas the 3D maps with flyover cover entire areas and have complete flexibility in movement along the x, y, and z axis including position, height, depth of field, and angle. Street View is terrible in that aspect.
The worst thing of all about Street View though is that it is very limiting. You can't really move around in it. You have to follow specific streets/paths and it is maddeningly slow to navigate. Whereas the 3D maps with flyover cover entire areas and have complete flexibility in movement along the x, y, and z axis including position, height, depth of field, and angle. Street View is terrible in that aspect.
Last edited:
From the image you provided, yes it is very spotty. Not eveyone lives in the North America, Europe or Australia you know. And like the post above this says, many cities have streets missing, although as they have mapped some parts of the city, they include that in their overall coverage which is misleading.
Let's use China for example. I'd be my life savings that the reason there's no coverage in the PRC (but there is in Hong Kong and Macau) is bureaucratic on the part of the Chinese government. India, South-East Asia and South America coverage is disappointing, absolutely. But that is literally it. I could twist your argument and say you seem to think no one lives in North America, Europe, Japan, or Australia.
Just because they haven't mapped every single traversable road in the regions they do cover doesn't justify the descriptor "spotty". Which city (and I've noticed you used the word "city" here) would you describe the coverage as being spotty? The city I live in (small, non-American) is pretty much completely covered.
The fact that the person I was responding to used the word "spotty" also allows me to conclude he does not live in any of the aforementioned zero-coverage areas.
Last edited:
That's horribly misleading. While streetview coverage in the US is generally great, there are large areas that aren't covered. For example, while much of California is generally covered well, and have great detailed images, Nebraska can be almost third-world in terms of small-town coverage (compare Fort Jones, CA with Burwell, NE).
I would say California's coverage is just bias due to the fact that Google is based there. Nebraska on the whole has a population density far below the national average. Wiki states Burwell has approximately a population of 1200, and while I understand it's arrogant to say that this is a full justification, even Google can't change economics. What I will then propose is that Google will cover Burwell before Apple will. Alternatively, Burwell will never be covered.
If you set the goal posts high enough, you can make it look like anyone has missed.
Last edited:
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Yes I completely agree. This is why I try to avoid using street view, and it ALWAYS frusterates me when I use it. It's convenient sometimes to get a good view of a location, but whenever I have to start moving around it is equally frusterating as it is helpful.
I'll probably miss it every once in a while, but it's not nearly as big of a deal (to me) as it seems to be to all the complainers. Who knows, flyover might actually be able to replace a lot of the functionality.
It can't. Even if you were able to zoom in close enough to read a sign (which you can't), the resolution of the images is far too low. When you get as close as you can to buildings, for the most part they look like they are melting. Flyover looks really great when zoomed way out though. That's not likely to improve unless they zoom the lens more and tighten the flyover grid pattern by a lot which means the airspace over a city is tied up for a longer period.
Source: testing with iPad 3
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
You're right. I've seen some still images that are zoomed in all the way, and I know I wouldn't be able to read any signs or anything else that requires detail. Although I do think that would be awesome if Apple were able to obtain that level of detail.
But I'm mainly referring to more broad uses of street view where I just would like to have a general idea of what the area looks like for something, and am not necessarily looking for street signs. Looking for parking downtown, checking out an unknown neighborhood that I'm going to be going to, looking at various parks to decide which one to take the kids to... etc. If I need a picture of the front of a business, hopefully the yelp images that are built into the maps app will be able to provide that.
Precisely. This is what people don't get. Flyover is for the kinds of things you mentioned and Street View is absolutely terrible for those kinds of things. And likewise, Street View is great for reading a sign in a specific spot which Flyover isn't good for.
They are for different purposes. Flyover isn't a replacement for Street View in its best use cases but at the same time Street View isn't a replacement for Flyover in its best use cases either.
I do know Apple has a winner on its hands with Flyover and 3D maps. Google seems to have been caught flat footed with this in their Google Maps application and will have to play catchup.
A) who doesn't fly a chopper to work every day? Maybe it's just be.
B) There was street view on the iPhone?! The ef I've never seen it.
B) There was street view on the iPhone?! The ef I've never seen it.
I posted this in another thread, but it is worth repeating here since I see no mention of it over 5 pages of uneducated responses.
The C3 images that are posted do not look that great, but are years old. They have improved the algorithm...particularly since Apple got involved. Newer images are quite impressive (although, I was still impressed with the level of detail achieved on the old maps).
C3 HAS been working on streetview including the ability to have building owners allow them to come in and do building "internal views"...now how cool is that.
Here is the link to the story from this very site last year.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/0...s-also-offer-street-views-and-interior-views/
Not a big fan of the navigation in Google street view, but I do use it on occasion.
My personal preference is flyover due to the fact that it DOES give a better birds eye view and enough detail over a larger area for me to see where I'm going.
The C3 images that are posted do not look that great, but are years old. They have improved the algorithm...particularly since Apple got involved. Newer images are quite impressive (although, I was still impressed with the level of detail achieved on the old maps).
C3 HAS been working on streetview including the ability to have building owners allow them to come in and do building "internal views"...now how cool is that.
Here is the link to the story from this very site last year.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/0...s-also-offer-street-views-and-interior-views/
Not a big fan of the navigation in Google street view, but I do use it on occasion.
My personal preference is flyover due to the fact that it DOES give a better birds eye view and enough detail over a larger area for me to see where I'm going.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Well they do have their enhanced 3D images in google earth that look similar to flyover... So I don't know if I would entirely say flat footed. Google will always be able to argue that when you need flyover, just use google earth. I'm not sure how essential it is that they are paired together. Also, I don't know how difficult it would be to implement this in their maps app if they wanted to. Heck I don't even know how advanced their android maps app already is honestly.
exactly. I've seen numerous people here on MacRumors (the group that is as a whole much more iPhone literate than tha masses) that don't even realize this.
I don't think the masses will miss it.
That's why I specifically said in their Google Maps application. I know they said they plan to add 3D to Google Earth (at some unspecified future time) but they apparently have no plans to add it to Google Maps. The nice thing about the C3 technology is how it integrates seamlessly into the regular Maps. So even if/when Google does add something similar to Google Earth, they will be at a distinct disadvantage.
oh...and the Google amp above of the so called "street view coverage" is total b.s. Looking at that, I would assume the entire United States has been mapped. Not my area.
I think flyover looks detailed enough that it would be better than streetview to me (well, depending on if it is actually available where I need it to be... streetview for now has that advantage that it covers far far more areas).
Yes, it's from a different perspective, but you still can see what the area looks like and really, I don't need it to be from the exact same perspective for it to tell me what to look for, I can still tell from above the things to look for. And this gives me a smooth way to look more around the area rather than from a set point (streetview a lot of times I couldn't actually see what I was looking for and it wasn't always helpful cause it would give me some generic area that didn't really stand out enough to help).
But, streetview for now is better cause it covers far more. I mean I'm lucky enough to be near a city 3D covers but I bet it will only help me if I go into that city.
Yes, it's from a different perspective, but you still can see what the area looks like and really, I don't need it to be from the exact same perspective for it to tell me what to look for, I can still tell from above the things to look for. And this gives me a smooth way to look more around the area rather than from a set point (streetview a lot of times I couldn't actually see what I was looking for and it wasn't always helpful cause it would give me some generic area that didn't really stand out enough to help).
But, streetview for now is better cause it covers far more. I mean I'm lucky enough to be near a city 3D covers but I bet it will only help me if I go into that city.
Does Flyover really add that much over high resolution satellite imagery in these cases? In fact, in most cases, the only way to find parks is using the regular map and looking for green shaded areas. You are likely to get a higher detailed look of the park you find from good satellite photos than the 3D map data.
For checking out neighborhoods, street view is excellent.
Yes, it really does add that much. Satellite view only gives you a bird's eye view. Flyover doesn't have that restriction and of course it is more detailed as well. You have to try it out to understand.
Pictures don't do it justice because the interactivity of it is what makes it so good... the fact that with two fingers you can pan around at 360 degree angles and across the x, y, and z axis. You can't do that in either regular Satellite or Street View. Especially with Street View you are extremely limited in movement.
it constantly amazes me how people here are infinitely short-sighted and narrow-minded.
some of you might remember this. steve jobs talked about tech waves. apple jumps on those that are in their spring, those that have enormous potential and bright future.
you here are comparing mapping solution based on driving in a car with a camera to one based on airborne images. how is that even possible? did you all played american football for the first 8 years of your life? dont anyone see the difference and potential?
google has nowhere to go with streetview. they need to have a million cars driving constantly for the foreseeable future, and then do it again. the result is always outdated maps and views. its incredibly time and resource consuming yet offers outdated info most of the time. and you think thats good? its a blind road. it has no future, it has no potential.
apple has much better base (stop being so narrow-minded and short-sighted. value of a product like this is based on its potential and future) they fly over in planes. they can map every city on the world that has more than 50.000 people in a few years (we dont know how many they did already and they intend to compete with google). camera and 3d mapping, etc. will constantly get better and better. i dare to say that in 4 years down the road the images will be high-res, like google streetview, but with two differences, they wont be outdated, and will cover enormous part of the world.
so it basically gets to this. cars vs airborne.
even google got caught with their pants down. also, it amazes me how a multi-billion dollar company could be so short-sighted like you here? driving around in cars taking pictures? i mean, its hilarious. who even got the idea? its like im a newspaper boy on a bike for a whole los angeles, and i should deliver them every day to everybody. some are bound to get outdated news papers. you see? the whole concept is bad, its based on a wrong foundation -cars.
what i see when i look at flyover is enormous potential, and thats why its years ahead, get it? google need to start over, review their position and future in mapping solutions. imagine the whole world covered in high-res 3d? you cant do that with a car. but with a plane its possible to do streetview (extremely high-res) when technology evolves. and it will.
all you see here is a point in time. no wonder world's going to ****. and im not talking about economy. sometimes im really ashamed calling myself homo sapiens.
some of you might remember this. steve jobs talked about tech waves. apple jumps on those that are in their spring, those that have enormous potential and bright future.
you here are comparing mapping solution based on driving in a car with a camera to one based on airborne images. how is that even possible? did you all played american football for the first 8 years of your life? dont anyone see the difference and potential?
google has nowhere to go with streetview. they need to have a million cars driving constantly for the foreseeable future, and then do it again. the result is always outdated maps and views. its incredibly time and resource consuming yet offers outdated info most of the time. and you think thats good? its a blind road. it has no future, it has no potential.
apple has much better base (stop being so narrow-minded and short-sighted. value of a product like this is based on its potential and future) they fly over in planes. they can map every city on the world that has more than 50.000 people in a few years (we dont know how many they did already and they intend to compete with google). camera and 3d mapping, etc. will constantly get better and better. i dare to say that in 4 years down the road the images will be high-res, like google streetview, but with two differences, they wont be outdated, and will cover enormous part of the world.
so it basically gets to this. cars vs airborne.
even google got caught with their pants down. also, it amazes me how a multi-billion dollar company could be so short-sighted like you here? driving around in cars taking pictures? i mean, its hilarious. who even got the idea? its like im a newspaper boy on a bike for a whole los angeles, and i should deliver them every day to everybody. some are bound to get outdated news papers. you see? the whole concept is bad, its based on a wrong foundation -cars.
what i see when i look at flyover is enormous potential, and thats why its years ahead, get it? google need to start over, review their position and future in mapping solutions. imagine the whole world covered in high-res 3d? you cant do that with a car. but with a plane its possible to do streetview (extremely high-res) when technology evolves. and it will.
all you see here is a point in time. no wonder world's going to ****. and im not talking about economy. sometimes im really ashamed calling myself homo sapiens.
I have an iPad 3 with iOS 6 right beside me so I have tried it out. Buildings look great from a distance. Trees have some kind of transparent force field cone extending to their base so they look like spaceships about to take off so parks are not likely to look very attractive from close up. It looks like C3 has dabbled in 3D street view so I hope that comes to fruition but I'm not happy about potentially losing that for some period of time.