[HN Gopher] Google Maps updates 'dangerous' Ben Nevis route
___________________________________________________________________
Google Maps updates 'dangerous' Ben Nevis route
Author : rich_sasha
Score : 42 points
Date : 2021-07-17 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| stuartd wrote:
| Everyone: "don't kill your customers!"
|
| Google: "plenty more where they came from"
| Zenst wrote:
| There are always edge-cases. Though in this case, one that
| could send you over the edge. Really does sum up edge-cases in
| a whole new way of thinking.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Google maps does this for all destinations... It does a dotted
| line from the nearest road to the actual location if the actual
| location isn't on the road.
|
| Hardly a surprise when you ask for car directions...
| exegete wrote:
| The dotted line is not directions. It just indicates that you
| can't get to the destination by car so it brought you to the
| closest place and you'll have to walk the rest of the way. The
| dotted line is not walking directions but I guess I can see the
| confusion.
| advisedwang wrote:
| It's not just the dotted line that is being criticized. The
| driving directions end at the physically closest car park, but
| not the most appropriate for most people.
| tobr wrote:
| How does it make sense to say "you have to walk the rest of the
| way" by drawing a line on a map, unless you intended it to
| imply that that's the path to walk?
| treesprite82 wrote:
| Here's what that line looks like currently:
| https://i.imgur.com/tougs6p.png (note: this is with the
| updated end-point at visitor center, probably won't have gone
| through loch previously)
|
| It's de-emphasised, doesn't show up in directions, is a
| perfectly smooth curve rather than conforming to paths/roads,
| and doesn't have the label saying to walk it.
|
| I think the vast majority of people would correctly interpret
| it as just showing the distance between the end-point and the
| destination set and I don't think it's necessarily bad UI.
| But still, with the popularity of Google maps and potential
| danger in misinterpreting it, it's probably worth considering
| ways to make it even clearer.
| p_j_w wrote:
| If you use Google Maps on the regular, you'll be used to a
| solid blue line (yellow or red if there's traffic) on the
| car's route. I don't remember the first time I came across
| the dotted line, but I certainly don't remember having a hard
| time figuring out what that meant. Apparently this isn't the
| case for everyone, though.
|
| Also, I'm a nove hiker at best, but even I know that there's
| essentially zero hikes where the shape of the trail is a nice
| arc across the map like the one in the story. I'm
| legitimately baffled that anyone would have thought that was
| a suggested path to the peak.
| minitoar wrote:
| Agreed, this is extremely confusing and a pretty big design
| flaw. Google Maps pops up a warning if the business you are
| traveling to is closing soon, or if there are tolls. It should
| show a warning in these situations where the road ends far from
| the destination. The heuristics are less obvious, but I think
| you could catch most cases. You could even prompt to add
| another section to the trip in walking mode.
| neltnerb wrote:
| This looks to me like an entirely valid hiking route that says
| to use actual marked foot trails on the ridge.
|
| If you have configured it for walking it definitely uses real
| trails from topographical maps. It wouldn't be outrageous to
| assume that Google will automatically switch from driving to
| walking mode at the best location to exit your vehicle.
|
| I would personally be double checking if I was confused but
| Google does do both things so it's easy to imagine Google being
| smart enough to combine the two now that it obscures so much of
| the interface.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.3518109,-71.7913173/43.38...
| missblit wrote:
| I think there's a couple things here:
|
| A dotted blue path indicates a path to walk on. This shows up
| in public transit or walking directions where part of the
| trip actually involves walking.
|
| A dashed grey arc appears when Google Maps can't actually get
| you all the way to the destination but can get you close.
| This arc indicates distance, but not a particular route. This
| is what the screenshot in the article shows (except the
| screenshot shows light blue instead of grey for some reason).
|
| In particular note how the arc in the screenshot is perfectly
| smooth instead of following a path, a lighter color than the
| rest of the route, and dashed instead of dotted.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| And unless the user is really used to distinguishing
| between those two, having that with no further explanation
| is a terrible way to design a UI.
| another-dave wrote:
| "It wouldn't be outrageous to assume that Google will
| automatically switch from driving to walking mode at the
| best location to exit your vehicle."
|
| On the other hand, it also wouldn't be outrageous to assume
| that if an app is giving you "walking directions" that the
| route would be walkable for an average user rather than
| "highly dangerous, even for experienced climbers".
| stingraycharles wrote:
| While you and I and many a HN reader will understand this,
| there is something to be said that people _will_ , at some
| point, mistake this for an actual route and try to follow it.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Yes! I see this all the time when setting directions for
| provincial parks and other "remote" destinations. It never
| occurred to me that someone would blindly follow them.
| genewitch wrote:
| I think part of the possible confusion is that "cutesy"
| curved line from the parking area to the peak. It shouldn't
| draw anything between where the actual directions end and the
| map pin, just show the pin.
|
| All that being said, changing the directions so it ends up at
| the visitor center is probably a good choice, regardless of
| how few people actually were or would be confused.
| samatman wrote:
| There are better ways to communicate this though.
|
| I'd consider a shaded-in area with wiggly outlines, big
| enough to be path shaped, that just says "walk". That
| conveys "you need to get yourself to this pin, and we don't
| know how to help you".
| yibg wrote:
| I can see the confusion but users also should be mindful of the
| context of using an app. Often times there is no exact location
| for example so "routes" should be taken as a general guide
| rather than specific path.
|
| If I use google map to navigate to a lake for example, I
| wouldn't expect swimming instructions to the middle of the
| lake. In the photo in the article it looks similar. It's just
| navigating to the rough vicinity, instead of an exact location.
| toper-centage wrote:
| Most UX design makes lots of assumptions. Someone who is not
| familiar with Google maps could very well interpret the dotted
| grey arc as a real path. It's almost identical to the dotted
| blue path.
| raspyberr wrote:
| OpenStreetMap really does crush Google Maps for outdoor routes
| and trails.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Very true. I find their coverage excellent.
| yoursunny wrote:
| OpenStreetMap also takes some get used to. I once mistook an
| contour line (denotes equal elevation) for a trail, and
| wondered why the "trail" needs so much bushwhacking.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Trails are usually dotted lines and contour lines are always
| solid lines, was this not the case here?
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| The proper response to these "somebody-blindly-followed-navi-and-
| hurt-themselves" stories should not be just ad-hoc patching of
| particular cases by map improvements.
|
| It should be a holistic UX review to solve the problem at its
| core - how to get people to stay alert and be critical of
| navigation directions.
|
| How? I don't know, but surely Google has/can hire literal PhDs to
| solve this.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in the UK. A tender 1345m ASL
| but starts more or less at sea level so actually a solid piece of
| rock.
|
| On the one hand, duh, how stupid can people be to only trust a
| mobile phone for directions in the mountains.
|
| But then I guess there is a whole generation of adults now who
| grew up with phone apps or websites being the authoritative
| answer in so many areas of life. It may not be just stupidity
| keeping them from looking at a paper map. How many of them were
| ever shown one?
|
| I'm assuming it was recent teenagers who got confused by Google
| Maps, but even if not, the broader point stands.
| daleharvey wrote:
| How stupid can people be that a device that can store vast
| amounts of information, be updated constantly, can track your
| exact movements and contact people instantly across the world
| not be more useful than some ink printed on a fragile piece of
| paper.
|
| The fact that a bit of paper easily destroyed by some water
| (not exactly unknown conditions for Scotland) is considered
| essential should be a source of embarassment for the tech
| industry, not smugness.
| ghaff wrote:
| I mean this in the nicest possible way but you don't know
| what you're talking about. Do I use GPS? Of course I do. But
| maps on tyvek or protected by plastic are not exactly
| fragile. Batteries are always going to be an issue especially
| in cold conditions and I wouldn't want to put myself in a
| situation where a device problem left me in a really bad
| place.
| daleharvey wrote:
| You have me there, it's not like I am Scottish and spend
| most of my time navigating the Scottish outdoors or
| anything ...
| ghaff wrote:
| If you know an area and don't even really need a map,
| it's not really a big deal. I usually carry one by habit
| when I hike trails I know well but I often don't bother
| with a compass.
|
| But unfamiliar areas where getting lost is a real
| possibility? No I don't want to abdicate full
| responsibility for my safety to a phone.
| daleharvey wrote:
| If you are doing it in the winter then sure, in the
| summer you don't even need a phone the route is very
| clear.
|
| My comment wasnt particularly that paper backups werent
| the best option in some circumstances, it was more
| against the general smugness / gatekeeping nature thats
| fairly common in outdoors circles, and that really unless
| have to worry about it being cold enough to effect your
| battery, really a phone should be a better option for
| most people and the fact it cant be considered reliable
| is an indictment on this industry as most of the problems
| (cold batteries aside) are easily solved (offline,
| detailed maps, battery issues), the only problem is
| solving them doesnt sell ads
| ghaff wrote:
| I was mostly just reacting to suggestions that paper maps
| are unnecessary. I actually agree that you don't _always_
| have to be fully prepared against any possible
| eventuality, however unlikely. And that carrying too much
| stuff can be a hazard on its own.
|
| I've walked hundreds of miles in England and I've always
| carried a map with me but I've almost always used the OS
| app and the paper was mostly for planning and getting a
| bigger view.
|
| I am suspicious of electronics. This just seems like a
| case where, given the easy backup, why not use it when it
| might matter.
| staticman2 wrote:
| The problem isn't ads, it's that designing a phone for
| hiking has tradeoffs that make it less appealing to
| consumers when you are not hiking.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Because a human being had to put that ink to paper, and
| presumably, did so in an educated way. Automated machines are
| fallible, especially when the same algorithm might apply to
| walking directions in the streets of NYC, and certainly
| doesn't benefit from human scrutiny for every possible route
| it might suggest.
| daleharvey wrote:
| You can take the maps printed on paper ... and "print" them
| on a screen!
| azinman2 wrote:
| We're talking about Google Maps here. Not some PDF you
| downloaded.
| daleharvey wrote:
| The parent and I were talking about the general idea of
| device vs paper and not about specific map
| implementations.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>The fact that a bit of paper easily destroyed by some water
|
| You do know most outdoor maps are laminated, right? The ones
| you'd take with you on such a journey anyway. A phone can
| break in a dozen different ways, or just simply run out of
| charge. Slightly harder with a paper map.
| genewitch wrote:
| I think the entire comment was facetious.
| gambiting wrote:
| I really hope so :-)
| daleharvey wrote:
| The OS paper maps are still very popular these days but
| have managed to destroy both the paper and weatherproof
| ones over my time.
|
| Also very easy to lose a map, the nice thing about phones
| is everyone else you are with is carrying one, less so with
| maps. The only real way you are going to get everyone in a
| groups phone breaking is if you are somewhere extremely
| cold.
| notatoad wrote:
| Road maps have never contained the hiking route up Ben Nevis.
| If you try to get hiking directions off a road map, you're
| going to have a bad time.
|
| this fact is not unique to digital maps.
| daleharvey wrote:
| The comment I was replying to and point I was making wasnt
| about the implementation of individual maps. It was a
| general point about using a device to navigate vs paper
| maps.
|
| (Ordnance survey maps are available for your phone)
| notatoad wrote:
| I'm confused about the point you're trying to make then.
| As you say, hiking maps are available for your phone. You
| can use them if you want. So how exactly is this a
| failure of technology?
| daleharvey wrote:
| A lot of people cannot, or dont feel like they can rely
| on a phone:
|
| Various functions including maps will die if your phone
| goes offline, your phone will chew through your battery
| even in situations where you really need it for one
| purpose, general purpose apps like google maps will work
| well enough until they put you to the top of a mountain
| without cell reception.
|
| These are all fairly easily solvable UX problems, users
| with enough knowledge can solve them but that to me is
| still a failure of technology.
| dageshi wrote:
| I would guess most under 35 wouldn't even think to use a paper
| map honestly, I wouldn't and I'm actually closer to 40, but
| I've been getting my information from online sources since the
| the late 90's, I don't use paper anything in any other part of
| my life, there's no obvious reason to use a paper map over
| google maps or some specialist mountaineering app.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| It's about the affordances.
|
| I hike and climb in the UK and I would never head into
| serious mountain country without a physical paper map.
|
| Paper maps (with a simple map case) are more durable than a
| smartphone or tablet. They don't stop working when it gets
| too cold or wet, or when you lose connectivity and realise
| you forgot to download, or when you drop them. The battery
| doesn't run down. You can spread a paper map out and get the
| context of the terrain for miles around without losing
| resolution. I dont need to wipe snow or rain off the screen
| of a paper map, or try to scroll it with gloves on. They have
| a physicality that matches the physicality of being in the
| mountains.
|
| I have Ordnance Survey mapping for the whole of the UK on my
| phone, but paper maps are in a different league.
|
| For what it's worth, I'm the other side of fifty to you.
| daleharvey wrote:
| > or when you drop them
|
| Paper maps very often stop working when you (unknowingly)
| drop them, the advantage phones have is that usually
| everybody has a phone, less so with paper maps.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's not nearly that one-sided.
|
| Wetness can definitely screw up a paper map, and if it's
| currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a
| phone than actual paper. You can forget to download a map,
| and you can forget to bring a map, so that's about equal.
| For paper the battery doesn't run down but also it doesn't
| work at night. Spreading paper out is great sometimes, yes.
| I have no idea what you mean when you say the physicality
| "matches".
| FormFollowsFunc wrote:
| I used carry a paper map and compass a lot more but not so
| much anymore, especially not for a day hike. I probably would
| for a multi-day hike as a backup. Ben Nevis is quite a
| touristy mountain with a very clear wide busy path up it if
| you go the tourist route so no map is needed - just follow
| the person in front of you.
| ghaff wrote:
| I essentially always have a paper map with me unless I know
| the place in question (and know it's on OSM). For relatively
| advanced hiking? I'll have a paper map and compass and will
| have looked up the details of routes in a guide book or
| online.
|
| But, yes, I am older although probably more to the point I
| lead group hikes so I'm a bit anal about prep and safety. And
| hike in winter when electronics are especially suspect.
|
| I would never consider heading up Ben Nevis based on Google
| Maps.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I don't use paper maps but always look at maps on gaiagps
| and alltrails to compare. I also look at guide books or
| articles about the route.
| ghaff wrote:
| That's certainly fair but, probably because I often hike
| in winter, I really don't want to potentially end up in a
| situation where I have a serious issue if my phone fails.
| Though they're pretty reliable, phones just have failure
| modes that physical maps don't.
|
| I don't worry about it in casual situations especially
| when there are other people around. Shoot a photo of the
| map at the parking area for a casual hike? Sure. But I
| like having backups when I can.
| another-dave wrote:
| The problem is that Google nominally operates at two levels of
| abstraction -- one is showing you the map, of that's all they
| did there would have been no issue -- that's parity with a
| paper map & up to the user to navigate.
|
| But at a higher level of abstraction, they provide directions:
| basically "outsourcing" interpretation of the map to them. Here
| there's definitely an onus on them to say "Sorry, no route
| found" and _tell_ the user they need to interpret the app
| themselves.
|
| By suggesting a route, they're obviously suggesting it's a
| safe/viable route. If they can't guarantee that, they should
| err on the side of caution.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I always use OSM while hiking. At least in Spain its coverage
| is much better than Google's. OSM shows the smallest trails
| where on Google Maps I'd be walking in a totally green screen.
| There's also a local alternative called WikiLoc but they're
| paid and they don't allow payments outside the play store
| sadly.
|
| Of course nothing beats a paper map for reliability but I tend
| to refer to OSM unless it's not available somehow.
| NGRhodes wrote:
| OSM also shows far more land and terrain detail, in
| particular field and tree boundaries which makes it far more
| useful for wayfinding and deciding which options is more
| favourable, often a longer route is an easier walk, but you
| are left totally guessing with Google Maps.
| yoursunny wrote:
| I wish OSM can show the trails instead of a green blob in
| some of our state parks. Maryland USA.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Anybody can contribute, just go read their site which
| explains what you're agreeing to, sign up and start
| contributing. If you want to actually create a whole
| walking trail through a state park that might need tools
| (on which OSM's site can advise good choices for your
| platform) but where people's only problem is "The name of
| my street was spelled wrong" you can fix that from the web.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| What you were using for viewing OSM data?
|
| Have you tried Osmand/mapy.cz?
| gambiting wrote:
| I'm sometimes worried for the kids that grow up in homes with
| voice assistants, where "hey Alexa" is the authoritative answer
| to everything.
| xmprt wrote:
| Do you also worry for kids who use planners and
| encyclopedias? People who say things like this seem like they
| either don't know how or don't care to change their workflow
| by incorporating new technology.
|
| Hey Alexa isn't the problem. It's the corporations behind
| them and their data collection policies.
| gambiting wrote:
| Content in encyclopedias is curated by a team of editors -
| I trust it about 1000x more than whatever nonsense Alexa
| says. It's mostly algorithmically generated by scouring the
| internet, without any kind of editing - it's trivial to
| find countless examples of Alexa(and Google home and Siri)
| providing completely nonsensical answers, because the
| question matched the snippet of the first article on some
| loony website. It's great if you catch it as a parent, but
| I know in many homes these devices are allowed completely
| without any supervision.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Only knowing, or or primarily relying on a single point of
| entry for all knowledge discovery is an issue. If you need
| to look something up in an encyclopaedia, even if it's just
| Wikipedia, it already makes you aware of the plurality of
| sources and endows with some basic searching skills. Hey
| Alexa doesnt.
| arkitaip wrote:
| You make zero sense. If you can't trust a map, what can you
| trust? Or should it be less reliable because it's an app?
|
| People aren't stupid, it's we - devs and designers - who have
| designed apps that confuse and deceit them, sometimes
| dangerously so. Let's stop blaming users and fix our shitty
| UIs.
| ghaff wrote:
| Even OSM (which tends to be better than Google Maps for
| hiking trails) has far from 100% coverage for hiking trails.
| (Though I'm guessing it's likely pretty good for a popular
| destination.)
|
| It still doesn't tell you anything more about the route--for
| which a map by itself is probably not enough. It's also more
| prone to failure than I want to depend on in a potentially
| hazardous situation.
| tweetle_beetle wrote:
| The argument being made is not to do with maps. In blunt
| terms, it's that mapping apps have many possible failure
| points outside of your control, while traditional map reading
| and navigation skills only have one - you.
| arkitaip wrote:
| People got lost using maps all the time because they were
| and are difficult to read.
| nradov wrote:
| Difficult how? Proper topo maps have a standard format
| and are easy to read.
|
| The harder part is figuring out where you are on the map,
| and what route to take.
| brewdad wrote:
| > The harder part is figuring out where you are on the
| map, and what route to take.
|
| Aye, there's the rub.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| My fundamental point is that mountaineering, or even hiking
| knowledge, is primarily contained off google: in paper maps,
| books, but mostly meatspace and experience, gained and
| shared.
|
| Is there now a generation that assumes all knowledge is
| googlable? And if there is an "app for it" then it is as good
| as it gets?
|
| I'm not blaming them, I was lucky enough to be taught about
| hiking (in this instance) by real people, no achievement of
| mine. More musing about how knowledge distribution is
| evolving.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| You want to be carrying topographic maps and a compass if you
| are hiking in the mountains.
|
| You have to know how to use them.
|
| GPS is great but cannot be relied on. Batteries die.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I think in todays world, a mobile phone is a far safer mapping
| device than a paper map.
|
| The main downside of a phone is is can have no signal or
| battery. People understand that downside well, and often
| prepare by bringing battery packs, solar chargers, offline maps
| apps, many phones in a group, etc.
|
| The main downside of a paper map is you don't have the blue
| dot. People have less experience with it. Usually only 1 person
| in a group has purchased the expensive map.
|
| When lost in adverse conditions, I'd give the group of
| inexperienced teenagers with a phone higher odds of getting
| home for dinner than those with a paper map.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Also, a phone is actually a phone. Nevis is obviously not at
| the centre of civilisation, but the UK is small, so there's a
| fair chance that somebody with a phone can get working
| service and call for help if they need it. Good luck calling
| for help with your paper map.
|
| Every teenager who sits down, and phones mum to report that
| they're tired and cold and lost and instead of an awesome
| view they were promised it's just fog everywhere, is safer
| than the one with a map who is falsely confident _this_ patch
| of snow is the route safely down when it might just actually
| conceal a cliff.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't think anyone here is arguing that people should
| discard modern technology because it isn't authentic or
| something like that. I and others are arguing that you
| shouldn't be wholly dependent on an electronic map or
| someone coming to help you because you're tired and cold.
| (And, by the way, if conditions are hazardous, search and
| rescue may well elect to wait un til the next day if they'd
| be putting themselves in danger.)
| raspyberr wrote:
| I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or compare or
| even why. "Mobile phone" online maps often have completely
| blank areas in wild areas whilst a specific "paper" map for
| that area is rich in detail. If you're going hiking, you'd
| take both a paper map for the area because it's more likely
| to be accurate AND you'd take a phone because GPS and being
| able to call for help is useful.
| ghaff wrote:
| And even calling for help can be marginal. Not that it's a
| panacea but if you're really concerned about always
| (usually) being able to call for help, you probably should
| have a personal locator beacon.
|
| There is a shift in attitude though. I was having an online
| discussion with someone who basically said they'd be
| terrified if they couldn't call for help and, for me,
| that's the default assumption if I'm away from
| civilization.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's the UK. You have apps on your phone with the Ordnance
| Survey maps.
| ghaff wrote:
| Which are awesome. I also carry the Tyvek maps. (And I
| suspect a number of "just use your phone" people haven't
| actually bought the OS maps for the location in
| question.)
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| What paper maps are out there that are more precise than
| what you can find on gaiagps or openstreetmaps?
| ghaff wrote:
| Around where I live (in Massachusetts) there are a ton of
| local parks and forests that have trails on their paper
| maps/websites that aren't on OSM--although it's gotten
| pretty good. (And, in fact, there are some unofficial
| trails on OSM that aren't on published maps. In the UK my
| experience is that the OS maps are often better than OSM
| in a variety of ways.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| The article doesn't say anyone got confused by this "route".
| This is much ado about nothing.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Also AIUI this "route" is like, "Here's where you could go in
| your car as a solid line, now, here's where you said you wanted
| to go, at the end of the dotted line - as you can see it's some
| distance away from where the car is at the end of the journey".
|
| I assume the same "route" would suggest that you can just walk
| straight through the sea if you ask to drive to one of the
| islands with no roads on it, but presumably somehow "Go up this
| dangerous mountain" is a "route" while "Walk on water" is not.
|
| Note that Google does not propose you could walk straight up
| Nevis if you say you _want_ to walk there, this "route" was
| produced for car journeys.
|
| A few of my friends tried to walk up Nevis a few years back,
| and during the final climb the people who were least prepared
| couldn't handle it any more, weather was getting worse and -
| sensibly - the entire group returned rather than leave them or
| try to drag them the rest of the way. Seems like "I bought this
| intermediate grade mountaineering gear and have spent a month
| breaking it in" was overkill, but "The boots I wear to work
| will be fine" was not enough.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I'm assuming it was recent teenagers who got confused by
| Google Maps_
|
| I don't entirely blame the GPS generation for this. As a
| society, we've been telling ourselves "Computers are never
| wrong" for almost a hundred years. Yet every day on HN, we see
| stories where the computers, or at least the systems they run,
| are wrong.
|
| It's only gotten worse since people started believing that
| Google is the arbiter of truth. My wife told me that she's had
| people banging on the doors after hours where she works because
| Google told them they were open. Where she works doesn't have
| public hours at all, so there's no reason any should be listed
| in Google.
|
| Still, it reminds me of my days working in television when
| people would call up the TV station in a fit if what was on TV
| wasn't what was listed in the TV Guide. I don't know how many
| times I've told people, "We decide what to put on the air, not
| the TV Guide."
|
| Perhaps it's all just a general abdication of the
| responsibility to think.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Not to mention the dotted line down is clearly just a single
| curve from point to point. No real path in the world would ever
| look like that given the terrain underneath it.
| m-i-l wrote:
| One of the important things I've learned from working in
| technology, is that technology sometimes doesn't work. I've
| seen people unable to charge their cars on ChargePlace Scotland
| because they didn't have phone signal and hadn't thought to get
| the NFC card, for example. When it comes to something as
| important as protecting your life, you really should have a low
| tech backup. The top of Ben Nevis is in cloud most of the year,
| and sometimes visibility can get very poor very quickly, but if
| you walk the wrong direction from the summit you could easily
| fall off a cliff, so you really do need a map and compass to
| increase your chance of getting down safely. It's just common
| sense. I don't think it is necessarily a generational thing
| though - there have always been people from all generations who
| lack common sense.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| The problem is not trusting a mobile phone. There is no reason
| why a mobile phone with the right would be less trustworthy
| than a paper map.
|
| The problem is that they are using an app that is designed
| preliminarily for driving and walking cities, not for
| mountaineering. Just as a road map is not the best choice for
| hiking.
|
| Also, I keep saying "they" but who is "they"? The article
| mentions a dangerous route and potentially misleading
| directions but no account of people getting into trouble
| because of it. Maybe "they" are not so stupid after all. Maybe
| "they" can read the warning signs, realize that Google Maps is
| not perfect, that the path looks dangerous. Or maybe "they" are
| experienced, well prepared hikers who know what they are doing.
| bscphil wrote:
| Yeah, the idea that a printed map is necessarily going to
| have more accurate routes than something you find online is
| sort of laughable. In fact the opposite seems sort of likely:
| if a route changes or goes out of date, you'd expect an
| online source to get updated before the maps you can purchase
| in a store (if you even think to repurchase a map as opposed
| to using the one you bought 3 years ago).
|
| But I don't know that I'd agree that the issue is that the
| app is designed for driving, not hiking. I've had similar
| issues on supposedly drive-able routes. On a recent trip
| Google Maps tried to take me down many roads that were
| various combinations of non-existent / closed / dangerous /
| impassible. This was _in California_. We 're talking _barely
| a hundred miles_ from Google 's corporate headquarters.
|
| So yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that certain remote
| areas don't have accurate / sometimes have dangerous routes
| shown on the map. Accuracy is hard, you really need local
| expertise. If you're going to a park or established
| wilderness area, the managers should be able to provide you
| with up to date information before you go. That's the only
| kind of paper map you should be trusting.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed map.
| It may also be scanned and available through electronic
| means, but that's an extra.
|
| They are insanely accurate in most developed countries, to
| the point of listing individual trees and boulders at
| times, and that's something OSM et all isn't even trying to
| match.
|
| The fact that this is up for debate in this thread kind of
| reinforces my point: this used to be something every hiker
| would know. Route finding is based on maps, printed
| (curated) guidebooks and talking to experienced hikers or
| guides.
|
| We moved to a paradigm where the definition of knowledge is
| what is accessible by Google (either google itself or a
| searchable link). I can't then really blame people for
| following down this route - but ultimately this is heading
| in a direction of lost knowledge.
|
| We think, oh what a shame we are losing the traditional
| Maori navigation methods, but I guess the same is happening
| (at a much smaller scale!!!) to modern societies too.
| bscphil wrote:
| > The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed
| map.
|
| _When one is available and up to date, yes._ That hinges
| on ... so many things. Your OP is strange because (1) it
| assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps, without
| any qualification for what _kind_ of map you 're talking
| about, and (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on
| the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and
| "teenagers".
|
| Incidentally, the place I was visiting in California
| recently had no visitor's center or easily accessible
| ranger's station, so there was no obvious way to acquire
| a paper map. It was not a small, clearly defined area
| like a mountain where "listing individual trees and
| boulders" even makes sense.
|
| It seems dangerously presumptive to conclude that very
| low traffic areas traversed mainly by rangers are going
| to have accurate maps available _at all_. Gold standard
| or no gold standard, when you venture out in certain
| areas of wilderness, you have to fend for yourself. You
| can 't always count on the accuracy of a map - survival
| skills and ability to use a compass are at least as
| important.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| > (1) it assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps,
| without any qualification for what kind of map you're
| talking about
|
| Well, yes, not _any_ paper map. Also not any phone does
| maps right? Needs to have a screen. Not every computer
| has internet. And I suppose an Amiga might not even be
| able to render a map.
|
| All of UK (literally all) is covered by OS maps, at
| topographic accuracy. A little flimsy piece of paper you
| can pick up at a hut is not that. US has USGS maps, or
| national geographic maps, apparently (haven't hiked in
| the US). Most/all countries have an equivalent and that's
| the go-to for any semi-serious hiking and above. This
| data is collected and maps maintained anyway, since
| military, police, and really lots of government agencies
| needs very, very accurate central authority on the lay of
| the land.
|
| > (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the
| ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and
| "teenagers".
|
| Well there is no blame to apportion since there isn't
| apparently a fault. But if someone is mislead by the
| google maps image, I'll put it in the same category as
| driving to Gibraltar when you meant Gibraltar St.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| The other "problem" with the Ben is that it isn't particularly
| remote. There's a sizable to n (Fort William) quite close to
| it, and roads run to the north and west.
|
| But the lack of remoteness is deceptive. The flattish top of
| the mountain makes it hard to lose height quickly in bad
| weather, and poor navigation can bring you into gullies that
| quickly become almost vertical. The weather can change very
| quickly; the UK has a maritime climate and the mountain is
| about as far north as Moscow.
| ghaff wrote:
| Sounds a lot like the situation with Mount Washington in New
| Hampshire. As a cold injuries expert I knew would say, it's
| located where a lot of idiots can go up it unprepared or when
| they shouldn't. One of the more recent deaths was a woman who
| was very fit and prepared. She just set off in the face of
| really bad incoming weather reports that she apparently
| thought she could keep ahead of. Turned out to be some of the
| worst weather of the past few decades.
| tqi wrote:
| So what I gathered from this article is that the "danger" is
| entirely theoretical. No one has actually made this mistake, or
| even claimed to have almost made this mistake?
| rantwasp wrote:
| to be fair, my TomTom (when google maps was just a baby) screwed
| up multiple times before the online maps revolution. It's just
| that at that point in time people were expected to actually think
| vs today when every screwup is someone else's fault
| logifail wrote:
| > Mountaineering groups said the dotted line crossed "potentially
| fatal" steep, rocky and pathless terrain, while a suggested
| walking route for a different mountain, An Teallach, would lead
| people over a cliff
|
| I've climbed An Teallach, just over 20 years ago, with a group of
| student friends. To use the British English vernacular, it really
| is the "arse end of nowhere".
|
| With hindsight, despite our best efforts, we weren't particularly
| well prepared, and had we got into any kind of trouble - broken
| ankle or worse - it would have been a _very_ long walk for one of
| us to walk out to civilization and fetch help.
|
| Four days in the wilderness. Amazing.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think part of the problem could be the lack of ample map keys
| and symbols in most digital maps. Most of the time they rely on
| some bit of convention from analog maps but don't have the
| richness of old maps.
|
| Some GIS maps do have rich information and keys, but not these
| digital navigation maps. Without those keys people have to make
| more assumptions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-17 23:00 UTC)