David M
2005-12-07 16:14:59 UTC
Steve Jonson wrote in uk.railway
about: Re: Streetmap.co.uk - best mapping - maps.google.co.uk
bloody fast, although that seems to be decreasingly the case as it
becomes more well-known), its coverage of railways is, frankly, dreadful.
It doesn't even show even *main* railway lines until you're zoomed in
quite closely (no use for seeing if rail is viable for an intended
longer-distance journey: I suspect it isn't even capable of recognising
a hierarchy of railway lines as it does roads), it *barely* shows
railway stations (and again, only if you're zoomed in very closely (and
if you're "feeling lucky"), and its rendering of railway lines, where
they are shown, isn't particularly clearly distinguishable from roads.
..and Google seems to know something about the vapourware Glasgow
Central - Queen Street tunnel that the rest of us don't:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=55.860730,-4.254220&spn=0.005697,0.009581&hl=en
Google Maps also doesn't include cycleways, paths or other features
which you'd expect to find on a decent map such as OS. The digital basis
of their mapping isn't up to much either, with too few nodes resulting
in many streets (and railway lines) being the wrong shape and somewhat
segmented, and in the case of back lanes, rendered at full-street width,
which makes many cities look more street than place (although I guess
many USAns wouldn't register this defect ;-( ).
And, either Google's map suppliers are astoundingly inaccurate or there
are more fake 'trapstreets' on Google Maps than I've ever seen anywhere
(usually at least one on any given street-level zoom). Just take the
above example again: do you think we should tell Nelson Mandela that
they've renamed his square in his absence? (And that's /far/ from even
the only one in that vicinity!)
So while Google Maps's site technology is certainly extremely neat,
they're badly let down by their mapping suppliers. Although I rather
get the impression this is par for the course with US mapmakers, sadly.
Now, if multimap could re-engineer their site to use progressive display
and scrolling technology to Google's, then they'd be onto a winner..
about: Re: Streetmap.co.uk - best mapping - maps.google.co.uk
The best mapping on the Internet is without doubt at Google -
http://maps.google.co.uk/
All the railways are shown and it's much easier to zoom and drag the map
around
Come on, while Google Maps is fantastically whizzy (and on a good day,http://maps.google.co.uk/
All the railways are shown and it's much easier to zoom and drag the map
around
bloody fast, although that seems to be decreasingly the case as it
becomes more well-known), its coverage of railways is, frankly, dreadful.
It doesn't even show even *main* railway lines until you're zoomed in
quite closely (no use for seeing if rail is viable for an intended
longer-distance journey: I suspect it isn't even capable of recognising
a hierarchy of railway lines as it does roads), it *barely* shows
railway stations (and again, only if you're zoomed in very closely (and
if you're "feeling lucky"), and its rendering of railway lines, where
they are shown, isn't particularly clearly distinguishable from roads.
..and Google seems to know something about the vapourware Glasgow
Central - Queen Street tunnel that the rest of us don't:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=55.860730,-4.254220&spn=0.005697,0.009581&hl=en
Google Maps also doesn't include cycleways, paths or other features
which you'd expect to find on a decent map such as OS. The digital basis
of their mapping isn't up to much either, with too few nodes resulting
in many streets (and railway lines) being the wrong shape and somewhat
segmented, and in the case of back lanes, rendered at full-street width,
which makes many cities look more street than place (although I guess
many USAns wouldn't register this defect ;-( ).
And, either Google's map suppliers are astoundingly inaccurate or there
are more fake 'trapstreets' on Google Maps than I've ever seen anywhere
(usually at least one on any given street-level zoom). Just take the
above example again: do you think we should tell Nelson Mandela that
they've renamed his square in his absence? (And that's /far/ from even
the only one in that vicinity!)
So while Google Maps's site technology is certainly extremely neat,
they're badly let down by their mapping suppliers. Although I rather
get the impression this is par for the course with US mapmakers, sadly.
Now, if multimap could re-engineer their site to use progressive display
and scrolling technology to Google's, then they'd be onto a winner..
--
David M. -- Edinburgh, Scotland.--[en, fr, (de)]--[reply-to valid <365d]
» Please trim quotes & interleave reply for readability, don't be lazy «
» Please feel free to help me by correcting my foreign language errors «
*Research climate change on your computer: http://climateprediction.net*
David M. -- Edinburgh, Scotland.--[en, fr, (de)]--[reply-to valid <365d]
» Please trim quotes & interleave reply for readability, don't be lazy «
» Please feel free to help me by correcting my foreign language errors «
*Research climate change on your computer: http://climateprediction.net*