This Just In: googlemaps for bikes!

[SadieKate]

Having bicycled and motorcycled through a good part of the eastern US, I'm not aware of any better method to determine whether or not a road is paved or even exists. AAA isn't reliable, Navteq (who I believe is where Garmin gets their maps from) isn't reliable. It's definitely worth checking the aerial maps on Yahoo and Bing as well as Google, since each one is updated on a different schedule, and you want the most recent one. You could write the county engineer in every county you plan to travel through and maybe get a timely answer, but that gets cumbersome pretty quickly.

I mean, your neighborhood is still on the images, right? Or have they taken those down, too?

This is no different from the stories that went around a year or two ago about people who drove through barriers because their GPS told them to. You still gotta use your eyes...

In this part of the world, it is very difficult to tell from Google images whether a street is paved or not. Everything shows as varying widths of gray. Pavement, dirt, gravel, rocks, everything. An old FS road over boulders still looks like a standard old chip seal road in the images. I experienced this on a run just a few weeks ago. Maps, images and reality didn't jive. But I bet a cyclist, runner, equestrian family with the area could have told me. AAA, gazetteers, FS maps, at least state the type of road so you can err on the side of caution.

Yes, our neighborhood is still on the image but so what? If someone else tries to map to our house, they'll end up in a gravel pit over half a mile a way. They also won't get turn by turn directions.

Google also provides incorrect info about connecting roads (our street is not continuously connected) and directions on roads that haven't existed in years. You can also be directed onto private gated property (as in the incorrect mapping to our house).

Why contact each county engineer? There are plenty of internet sites where people ask and receive info about recommended routes from people who use the route. These could then be manually mapped on Google but I sure won't trust Google to create the route from scratch. I will take AAA over Google every time.

BTW, Bing has far more up to date images for our area.

Feel free to do whatever you want, but don't use Google Maps in Central and Southern Oregon unless you want to hear from me "I told you so."

[ny biker]

Definitely look at the satellite view, often you can zoom in far enough to tell whether or not the road is paved, a definite issue in Appalachia. In my area, also, there are some inaccuracies in Google maps (roads are shown connecting when they really don't, roads have been realigned but the maps haven't been updated yet, etc.), and satellite/aerial pictures can help with that, too, especially if they're recent.

Unfortunately I find that Google's satellite view is not always up to date. If you look up the intersection of N Glebe Rd and Fairfax Dr in Arlington, VA, you see a photo that is very old. There's been a lot of development in this area over the last 10 years and none of it shows up in this photo. They overlay the names of businesses that exist today, but they're on empty fields, construction sites and parking lots that no longer exist.

Maybe this is the exception, but having no way of knowing which shots are current and which are out of date, I have to take it all with a big grain of salt.

[jobob]

Well, dump on it all you want (not like you need anyone's permission to do so ).

I think this is a great start and a very admirable endeavor on Google's part.

Sure, like any mapping program, it's nowhere remotely near perfect. Ummm, maybe that's why it's a beta release?

What it does that I think is really good is that it shows were off-street bike paths are located. This is something that many mapping programs simply don't do.

Many of my own tried & true bike routes don't show up, especially the ones that involve hills or narrow roads or roads with moderately heavy traffic. This makes sense to me, since the biking directions are more aimed towards novice or occasional cyclists.

There are going to be routing glitches (it's beta, remember) -- hopefully people will have enough sense to not take the directions as a guaranteed sure thing, but to use them as a planning guide. OK, maybe I'm underestimating the gullibility of the average person here. Maybe Google should overlay the directions with a big "beta" stamp with lots of "use at your own risk" labels. And if you don't like it, ignore it.

Call me a dorky optimist, but I for one am not going to dump on it on day one and throw up my hands and exclaim "why bother?"

[GLC1968]

Feel free to do whatever you want, but don't use Google Maps in Central and Southern Oregon unless you want to hear from me "I told you so."

Don't use it in north western Oregon either. I've given up on it. Seriously, directions that are flat out wrong - turns in the totally opposite direction (and this is on long established roads in urban areas!), incomplete information, directions to drive where roads not only don't exist, but never have... I mean, one time, Google maps had us riding a route that we just didn't believe so we choose our own way. When I went out to drive the same route later, it became immediately obvious that we were right to ignore google maps. It directed us to drive what was essentially up someone's driveway and there was a house directly in the path of what google said should be road (and that was not a new house or one that looked to be in danger of being torn down anytime soon). Nuts.

I've gone back to mapquest for driving directions and they've been spot on the last 3 times I've used them.

One other warning, I don't know if this new site has banner ads, but I lost my computer to a virus from 'mapmyrun' and their banner ads last week. I will no longer even go to mapmyride or mapmyrun. If you have an account, then you can probably avoid it, but it happened immediately to me the time I went, so I will not take the chance ever again even if it's to try and sign up for an account!

Does this new tool use banner ads? Does anyone know?

[jobob]

It's interesting that they prioritize trails over bike lanes and on-street routes and also try to avoid hills.

I think Google is trying to make cycling more accessible to the average person. The people who think a five-mile ride is HUGE. Face it, most of the women (excuse me, posters) on this forum fall waaay outside of the norm.

Sure, it might be of limited us to many of us here, but maybe giving people an easy way to find local bike trails might get more of them off the couch and onto those trails and give cycling a try. And some of them might become more interested in cycling. That doesn't seem too awful to me.

[SadieKate]

Sure, like any mapping program, it's nowhere remotely near perfect. Ummm, maybe that's why it's a beta release?

Jo, I'm not talking about the beta or even the bicycling program. Google just doesn't provide accurate maps, directions or recent images in Oregon, period. Doesn't matter whether you're driving, walking, or biking. I have a hard time believing this is unique to Oregon.

[tulip]

I have found google maps to be quite accurate in Virginia, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Just proceed with caution, a backup map, and a bit of humor, as you would in any unfamiliar area.

[GLC1968]

I have a hard time believing this is unique to Oregon.

It might be. Google was our tool of choice when we lived in NC and we never had an issue - ever. That's why we were so shocked how lousy it was when we moved here...

[NbyNW]

Cool feature! Played with some SF routes since that city came up in the OP's link . . .

No Google bike love up here in Edmonton, tho

[ny biker]

I think Google is trying to make cycling more accessible to the average person. The people who think a five-mile ride is HUGE. Face it, most of the women (excuse me, posters) on this forum fall waaay outside of the norm.

Sure, it might be of limited us to many of us here, but maybe giving people an easy way to find local bike trails might get more of them off the couch and onto those trails and give cycling a try. And some of them might become more interested in cycling. That doesn't seem too awful to me.

That was pretty much the conclusion of the columnist from the Post.

[MartianDestiny]

Well, dump on it all you want (not like you need anyone's permission to do so ).

I think this is a great start and a very admirable endeavor on Google's part.

Sure, like any mapping program, it's nowhere remotely near perfect. Ummm, maybe that's why it's a beta release?

What it does that I think is really good is that it shows were off-street bike paths are located. This is something that many mapping programs simply don't do.

Many of my own tried & true bike routes don't show up, especially the ones that involve hills or narrow roads or roads with moderately heavy traffic. This makes sense to me, since the biking directions are more aimed towards novice or occasional cyclists.

There are going to be routing glitches (it's beta, remember) -- hopefully people will have enough sense to not take the directions as a guaranteed sure thing, but to use them as a planning guide. OK, maybe I'm underestimating the gullibility of the average person here. Maybe Google should overlay the directions with a big "beta" stamp with lots of "use at your own risk" labels. And if you don't like it, ignore it.

Call me a dorky optimist, but I for one am not going to dump on it on day one and throw up my hands and exclaim "why bother?"

+1

To add something about the satellite imagery. A lot of times there isn't much Google can do about this. They don't own the satellites. This means a few things:

1) Targets aren't picked based on what is needed for convenience views in mapping software. Hi-res (enough to do the near street view and see individual cars and houses) mapping of residential/commercial areas in the US is simply NOT high priority. Once they are imaged once (if that) they don't get re-imaged at high res (hence the fact that 10yr old data really is sometimes the best that you can do).

These are military and scientific satellites. Target priority has nothing to do with street view level mapping and that kind of resolution puts a large load on the spacecraft (they are BIG files) which limits "mission critical" data downlink.

2) Google simply may not have access to up-to-date reasonable to hi-res shots even if they exist. These images are typically either OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive or government classified. As a scientist wanting maps for research purposes I can expect to pay $5,000 up to 10's of thousands for up to date hi-res area maps (of not very big areas)!!! Commercial use release of this private data comes at a very hefty fee (if at all). Government lag can be months or more if they are even imaging the area at high-res (see above).

To update the grey outline of a newly built store on a FREE mapping utility, well I can see their reasons for not buying it even if available, and waiting for the cheaper/free stuff to come out.

3) All that "Street View" stuff is shot by Google (or Microsoft, but something tells me they aren't exactly sharing data) with special vehicles with special 360* camera mounts. Think about how much money and time it takes to drive through every single residential street in America. They haven't been at it that long either (a few years).

4) Different private maps could be in different formats/data types/etc. that make them more difficult to work with than it's really worth even if they are available and reasonably priced.

So while company A may be more up-to-date in one area than another they are almost certainly behind in another area. That's just the way it goes for any of a number of reasons.


Yes, Google maps has its bugs, it also has its many conveniences and attributes. Personally, I find the latter far outweighs the former.

[Sylvia]

I hope that Google eventually includes their Trike view with this.
It's like Street View but can show places not accessible by car, like bike paths.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...iew_trike.html

[WindingRoad]

OK some of you girls from the Philly area let me know if I can trust Google on atleast some of their routes. As you know I will be moving there soon and I'm already planning my routes.... I'm mapping routes from Mt. Airy to Elkins Park. I always drive a route before I ride it for the first time but that's a bit of a commute right now

[OakLeaf]

Actually, a lot of the imagery nowadays is aerial, even though they still call it "satellite." Much less expensive at the resolutions they have. (You can see the horses in my neighbor's pasture, 30 miles from nowhere.)

And as I said, they all update on different schedules, so I always use Bing and Yahoo as well as Google when it's important to get it right.

I forgot to mention them in my earlier post, but the gazetteers are also inaccurate as to which roads are paved.

No, you can't always tell from the imagery. But often enough to make it worthwhile to zoom in and compare the color of the road surface with the color of people's driveways and intersecting roads, etc.

[jobob]

I hope that Google eventually includes their Trike view with this.
It's like Street View but can show places not accessible by car, like bike paths.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...iew_trike.html

LeeBob, my DH, rode by the Google Trike one day a few months ago out on the Alameda Creek Trail. So maybe he'll be immortalized on Google Street (Path?) View someday.