[HN Gopher] maps.google.com now redirects to google.com/maps ___________________________________________________________________ maps.google.com now redirects to google.com/maps Author : garritfra Score : 1226 points Date : 2022-11-24 09:30 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (garrit.xyz) (TXT) w3m dump (garrit.xyz) | soheil wrote: | I kinda like the new url. The other reason could be that browsers | won't be able to autocomplete the url any more if you start | typing map... and hit enter to go directly to the site. Now you | probably have to do a google search for "maps" first and then | click on the first link driving more traffic to Search. | jialutu wrote: | Google maps is pretty much one of the only Google products that I | still actively use. It's funny that this article was written and | published today, since I had noticed the exact same thing | yesterday! Does anyone know when it first started? | sam- wrote: | I've been seeing this redirect to google.com/maps for at least | a year now because my default has always been to type | maps.google.com and I find it weird every time it redirects. | garritfra wrote: | A/B testing? | midasz wrote: | Living up to their name | 2143 wrote: | Definitely been a while. Like, perhaps a year or more. | | I'm in Asia btw. | butz wrote: | I wonder, why Google hasn't moved to .google domains, as they own | TLD? maps.google, mail.google, search.google seems to be shortest | versions possible. | OrangeMusic wrote: | Most people are confused with this, they expect websites to end | with .com. | blameitonme wrote: | recently gmail.com became unreachable and was moved to | mail.google.com dont know if its related | Ptchd wrote: | for me, gmail.com has been redirecting to mail.google.com/mail | for a long time... | mrjin wrote: | It looks like the result of the arm race with DNS based | ad/tracker blockers. This move will for sure force the users to | make a hard decision of "all or nothing". | ignoramous wrote: | If this ever was a race, it was _always_ a losing one. | | DNS-based content-blocker are woefully inadequate. I'd know | since I co-maintain one and the barrage of complaints I get | make it plenty clear where unaddressable limitations lie. | nathan_f77 wrote: | I think they probably did this for SEO. Having /maps on the root | domain will help it rank higher in search. | | This was a joke, but now I'm wondering if Google services are | special cases that are hard-coded in the search results. Or are | they just treated like normal websites and use the same pagerank | algorithm as every other site? If I search for "maps", I see | Google Maps at the top, and Apple Maps in second place, but they | both look like regular website links. | rmbyrro wrote: | Potentially a black hat SEO trick? | | We might see Google services' rankings punished on Google from | now on... | hartator wrote: | Note that Google before can just have an iframe to load | maps.google.com to get your location info. Don't change much in | term of privacy. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | I am having a hard time figuring out how this would be affected | by GDPR. | gtirloni wrote: | Does the GDPR care about the concept of apps and URLs? If not, | all it matters is the person/company relationship. | quicklime wrote: | The GDPR does care about different "purposes", it's not just | about the person/company relationship. | | I'm not a lawyer but my interpretation of this is that | consent for Google to use location data for maps doesn't | allow them to use that same location data for email. | | > Consent should cover all processing activities carried out | for the same purpose or purposes. When the processing has | multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them. | | https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32 | noneofyour wrote: | Exactly. The consent was provided for the specific | processing, not the TLD. The processing and all of those that | are not incompatible with it, that it asked permission for | that furthermore adhere to the requirements imposed regarding | specific and informed consent in the GDPR (see Article 4, sub | 11 GDPR and article 7 GDPR. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | the GDPR cares about the rights the company asks for, how | long it keeps it, does it need the rights for the purpose, | does it give you an easy way to opt out of the rights | collection and so forth. | | If in order to not let all of Google have your location | information you need to opt out of letting maps have your | location information it might be a GDPR problem. Considering | also that this was not a problem that people had before if | indeed it is a problem now it might be taken as a wilful | circumvention of GDPR. | gernb wrote: | Slightly different but I find it super confusing when search | shows maps. For example | | https://www.google.com/search?tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:9&tbm=lcl&q=clo... | | This looks like maps but it's not, it's search, so the UI is | different. Features I expect from "maps" are missing | mkl wrote: | This is not new. I'm pretty sure Google has done that kind of | redirection for ages for me. | aiddun wrote: | Now how long until they put ads under google.com/* | salsadip wrote: | Recently safari (on macos 10.15) started auto completing ,,maps." | to ,,maps.apple.com", although I only tried Apple maps once and | always use gmaps. Maybe google noticed this and tries to | circumvent safari's ,,preference" for Apple Maps | mngnt wrote: | Isn't maps.apple.com in your bookmarks? Most browsers suggest | from bookmarks before anything else. Maybe it got added there | in an update to. you know, improve your experience with the | Apple ecosystem. | salsadip wrote: | Its definitely not in my bookmarks. when i start typing, its | under the section titled "top hits". google maps is right | beneath it, but never first place | no_carrier wrote: | I think this change probably has more to do with corporate | firewalls than anything else. A lot of corporate internet access | isn't set up to MITM the requests (a lot of places are setup for | this, but a lot aren't). If they places all their services under | google.com as suffixes, places that don't MITM won't have any way | of stopping it as all they can see is the request to google.com. | uniqueuid wrote: | Given the history of Google's stance towards privacy and | tracking, I think it's naive to assume technical reasons. | | It may have been ok to fall for that argument for 10 years, but | after AMP, manifestv3, android's location log disaster, the | recording of wifi names and countless lawsuits across the | globe, it seems that the resource of good faith assumptions has | been depleted. Some may even say that trusting google (the | corporation) to act on technical or altruistic reasons is | delusional. | hdjjhhvvhga wrote: | > after AMP, manifestv3, android's location log disaster, the | recording of wifi names and countless lawsuits across the | globe | | Tangentially, it's funny how the whole Google+ fiasco with | forcing G+ account creation for YT etc. was quickly | forgotten. | piva00 wrote: | I haven't forgotten because my YouTube account to this day | has remnants of that move. The same with my Google | Contacts, it is an absolute mess of G+ and Orkut stuff that | got shoved in there at some point and Google never cared to | clean their absolute mess. | pydry wrote: | I'm as skeptical as anyone about Google's privacy record but | I'm not so convinced that this really helps google invade our | privacy more than it already does. | ilyt wrote: | Google: push security theathe features like CORS to make it | hard to run cross domain | | Also Google: decides to use single domain so any permission | you ever give work for all of their apps | dpryden wrote: | I recall from my time in Google Geo years ago that the idea of | integrating Search and Maps was a big part of the "New Maps" | release that happened around 2014. The rumor I heard was that | someone (possibly even Larry himself) wanted to be able to have | interactive maps directly on the search results page, so that the | navigation from a search query to a map wouldn't involve even a | page reload. So the big Maps frontend rewrite actually ended up | merging MFE into GWS, the web search frontend server. I recall | seeing maps hosted at google.com/maps around that time, but I | don't know if that was ever launched fully or if it was just an | experiment. | | In any case, though, my understanding is that the technical | capacity for this has existed for nearly 10 years now, just | behind a configuration setting. So it's possible that this change | is just a code cleanup. It's also possible that someone is trying | to increase the percentage of searches that have location | information, that doesn't seem terribly far-fetched either, and I | can imagine lots of ways people could try to rationalize it as | actually benefiting users. (Whether it actually does benefit | users is of course debatable.) | googlryas wrote: | Funny, because there is a crummy form of Google maps present | into he SERP, and it behaves completely differently from actual | Google maps. It constantly annoys me, usually when searching | for a business, that something that looks exactly like google | maps, in Google, doesn't behave the same as google maps. | cco wrote: | 100%! I always ascribe it to some PM somewhere, but when I | click on the "search maps" I would _love_ to be taken to the | "real Google Maps". | | The search maps is just a terrible experience, half | implemented, doesn't do what I want, even down to little | things. | | My hack is to pick directions, which will get me to Google | Maps, then cancel directions, this loses all state, but | you're still in the location you want and can usually then | just click the business you were looking for. | delroth wrote: | I have links to google.com/maps in my IRC logs dating back from | June 2014, so this absolutely tracks. | | I actually remember google.com/maps being launched at IO in | 2014 -- the presentation had a broken link in it for the new | version of Maps, and a few of us DoS SRE watching the | livestream were able to hack together a config change in a few | minutes to fix it without waiting for a urlmap push :) | CSSer wrote: | > It's also possible that someone is trying to increase the | percentage of searches that have location information, that | doesn't seem terribly far-fetched either, and I can imagine | lots of ways people could try to rationalize it as actually | benefiting users. | | Could you speak more to how this kind of thing figuratively | plays out? With privacy on most of our (tech-focused) minds, | I'm mostly curious how openly an initiative like this is/would | be carried out. Would you imagine it as a buried lede or as a | very transparent, explicit OKR? | googleburner wrote: | With the document policy changes over the last 5 years, most | decisions are now very opaque. Google TTLs everything except | Docs and code history & reviews, at this point: emails, | chats, bug reports, ... | | There's probably a tech debt focused OKR for this work, but | some other teams probably has OKRs that indirectly benefit | from the data, and they're probably providing staffing | support, tied to the tech debt OKR. OKRs are for telling | people why you're great, if you're at the bottom of the | pyramid, and for giving the rank-and-file some direction, if | you're at the top. The top level OKRs are usually very | precise and very vague at the same time. | | So there's probably an OKR in search to improve the quality | of the location signals. It can be vague on how. Plus, having | more and better data filters into your downstream systems, so | even without an OKR for the data you know it will make your | models more powerful. | hansvm wrote: | It's easy to rationalize it as benefiting the users, so I'd | imagine it's an explicit OKR, maybe even a few levels up in | the org. | | Like, one thing I've wanted on occasion is the ability to | search for brick and mortar stores in a given radius who have | the thing I want -- either because I want to physically | inspect it before committing to a purchase or because for | whatever reason the time/cost of shipping wouldn't be | practical. | | That sort of query is hard for Google to serve right now | though for reasons including the lack of relevant location | information in both the search results and the queries whose | user behavior would help drive relevance rankings for those | location-specific results. | | Location information is a bit of a double-edged sword too | though, even ignoring privacy concerns. I have to spoof my | location and change my search language to get some results | because of aggressive filtering happening behind the scenes. | If a given query doesn't match Google's current understanding | of the user then the right results existing in the corpus | often won't imply that the user is able to find them with | _any_ search operators. | pimlottc wrote: | This reminds me of how Google integrated Maps into Calendar as | a sidebar a while ago, a move that I absolutely hated. And | instead of providing a preference setting to disable it, you | have to "hide" the sidebar in a non-intuitive way [0]. I had to | search to figure it out. | | 0: https://www.howtogeek.com/695504/how-to-stop-google- | calendar... | The5thElephant wrote: | It is absolutely bizarre to me how half-assed Google is with | integrating its products. | | I have a week of events coming up in Google Calendar each with | a different event location. Why can't I see a map of all those | event locations alongside the calendar with all the same event | details listed? Why can't I associate a Google Calendar event | with a specific album or set of photos in Google Photos and see | those in the map and calendar as well? | | This is why I'm building https://visible.page with my brother. | We have all these capabilities of visualizing data on the web, | yet no one has actually put them together in a convenient and | consumer friendly way to visualize any type of information | together in one place. | | All these big tech companies seem to just give up on any kind | of significant innovation as soon as they reach a certain level | of monopoly on their market. Twitter, Spotify, Facebook, | Google, etc. I can think of a dozen significant feature | experiments they could try that would make my daily life better | using those tools yet they don't. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | Innovation and progress are dead. The mainstream google | products are all legacy software, just like Microsoft Office. | It's probably a mix of a lack of incentives, technical debt | and metrical constraints that make significant changes almost | impossible. Only god knows what all those THOUSANDS of | overpaid developers and their product/business entourage now | getting fired did all day. | | This is valid for all other FAGMAN companies as well. | NameError wrote: | An example of poor google integration that bugs me from time | to time - when you search for a geographic feature, the info | panel shows a great preview map with the outline of the | feature. E.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=rhine+river | | If you click into google maps, the outline is gone. Searching | "Rhine River" just puts a marker at one point along the | river. | majewsky wrote: | FWIW, OpenStreetMap can do it. I went to https://osm.org, | entered "Rhine" into the search and clicked on the first | result. Deeplink: | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/123924 | vxNsr wrote: | oh wow, it's actually worse for me: there's no marker at | all, just a map of western europe: https://www.google.com/m | aps/place/Rhine+River/@49.34645,7.87... | thwarted wrote: | This is not the case for me. I just now searched in mobile | Chrome for "Lakeview Chicago" and the mini-map static image | has a purple outline around the neighborhood. Clicking on | that took me to Google maps with the neighborhood outlined | in a red dotted line (which is harder to see, but obscures | less of the other features/labels on the map). This was on | Android, in the maps app, just now, but I've seen the same | thing in a desktop browser. | NameError wrote: | Ah, you're right. It looks like the issue I'm complaining | about only happens for "line" features - e.g. a river, or | a road (https://www.google.com/search?q=route+66). | noswi wrote: | Innovation, oh my, sometimes it feels like the fat ones (and, | by proxy, everyone else) are living in some alternate fantasy | world where the mantra "you're not gonna need it" is taken to | the extreme, so they're not even trying. | | The pendulum should swing back to complex and more | complicated interfaces sometime -- but right now these are | the dark times where, for example, Netflix, this huge, | popular movie and show library, doesn't even have a way to | find out exactly what movies with some actor or director it | has available. It's hard for me to wrap my head around that. | | Your project does look useful and on point though! | unethical_ban wrote: | The rumor/theory I have heard about Netflix is that | increasing discoverability too much would allow people to | see two negative traits of Netflix: How often things come | and go from the platform (which other apps like Criterion | Collection embrace), and just how limited their library | actually is at a given time. | | Scroll through recommendations. It looks like they have | hundreds of great movies for you to watch! And yes, | technically they do. But look how many times they try | suggesting the same movies in different categories, | inflating the view in a way to make the library seem | bigger. One movie might show up "Because you liked | comedy..." then "Because you watched <comedy movie>" then | "Light-hearted movies". | | TLDR money and masking their poor library quality. | reuben364 wrote: | I wonder if AppleTV's atrocious single-line onscreen | keyboard fits into this picture of making things less | discoverable, or if it's just an extreme of form over | function. | Swenrekcah wrote: | Whatever the reason (and I can think of many) it just | shows how Apple is past the point of caring for their | users. | khazhoux wrote: | I'm about to enable the new Facetime Live Transcription | feature in iOS 16 so my wife can have conversations with | her father, who is rapidly losing his hearing. For this | reason (and I can think of many) I strongly disagree. | s3p wrote: | Definitely not, because Apple gives users the ability to | type search in on an iPhone or iPad instead of using the | apple TV remote. They also let you do voice-to-text, | which is nice. | Swenrekcah wrote: | It is entirely possible to both provide a useable | onscreen interface and the iPhone connection option. | thanhhaimai wrote: | > It is absolutely bizarre to me how half-assed Google is | with integrating its products | | The answer can be summed up in one word: "privacy". | | There are two forces at play here. One side wants privacy. | When they give data to Google Calendar, they don't want | Google Maps or Ads know about it. The other side (your | opinion above) wants more integration between services. | | In this political climate, the privacy side has an edge. This | means if Google Photos want to access data on Google Calendar | to provide the integration you asked above, they will have to | jump through multiple quarters of privacy reviews, with a | very high odd of being shutdown. | | > All these big tech companies seem to just give up on any | kind of significant innovation as soon as they reach a | certain level of monopoly on their market | | After I see how the sausages are made, I think claims like | these are naive. It's worth learning more about the factors | at play before criticizing something. More often than not, | the agents are acting pretty rationally based on the | situation. | makeitdouble wrote: | IMO you're spot on. The catch being that between showing an | ad and matching photo locations, the former has a near | straight impact on the bottomline while the latter is | murkier. When both are going through reviews, that's a lot | of weight difference in the arguments and we'll see more of | one that the other. | the-rc wrote: | I remember the spiffy demo where the thumbnail in search | results morphed into the full Maps UI without reloading. | | But unification had started even earlier than that. Pretty much | since Larry became CEO again, he pushed this mantra of "One | Google", which brought the infamous Kennedy redesign across all | services, as well as more of them available under the | google.com host (e.g. maps as discussed here, but also flights | and more). One of the ideas behind the latter was that you had | to log into your Google account just once, which gradually made | it all the way to YouTube(!). I vaguely recall other factors, | such as compensating for the increased latency from going HTTPS | everywhere, but also discussions about securing and hardening | cookies. | | As far as I know, google.com/maps has been around the entire | time, but perhaps now it might be simply the canonical URL in a | larger number of cases. | nolok wrote: | This makes perfect sense product wise, if I'm searching | "bakery" on my mobile phone I probably want the ones around me | and not the generic location-agnostic google search of it, just | like I would if I was searching on map. Matter of fact, this is | actually something I do a couple times a month, search then | clic the maps tab to see localized results then from them click | the website result to find their webpage. | | As a techie I hate any direct change to the user-agnostic | absolute search, but as a user I get it. | amluto wrote: | Somehow DuckDuckGo has taken this to absurd extremes. Almost | any search that doesn't get many natural hits shows branches | of my local government toward the bottom of the first page of | results. | foreverathome wrote: | I have seen this too, also on bing. Not just government | though, sometimes it manages to find a local house for sale | instead. | philsnow wrote: | > if I'm searching "bakery" on my mobile phone I probably | want the ones around me | | And yet for me, even in google maps on my iphone, when I | search for bakery, the first one is almost always one that's | ~40 miles away, and the closest one is almost always the | second in the list. The rest of the list is definitely not | sorted descending by distance. If I've searched for a | _particular_ ABC bakery, I get other bakeries commingled in | the list even if I know damn well there are other ABC | bakeries closer than those. | blowski wrote: | I live in the UK. I recently searched for "pizza" and the | top result was in Thailand. | Joe_Cool wrote: | The first one is the one that put the most coins into the | AdWords slot, I'd guess. | titzer wrote: | This is achievable with geolocation based on IP address, | which is how it works on, e.g. a desktop web browser. | reacharavindh wrote: | funny how that works. I never ever allow location access to | anything Google or any website for that matter, and have a | muscle memory to hit deny when the browser prompts me. The | other day I was searching something and then clicking my | bookmarked Google News and suddenly all news were UK | specific, and my search results fro "heatpumps" were are UK | companies and products.. I was confused until I noticed | that my work VPN chose a UK endpoint because the NL one | where I am had higher latencies. So, Google _heavily_ | tailors the results based on where it thinks you 're at. | Also, I was delighted to know that inspire all the tracking | Google probably does on me, it was easily fooled to think I | was in the UK :-) | sk0g wrote: | "Achievable" is quite charitable from my experience. With | the previous ISP I would get located in a city some 2000kms | away, sometimes the scam ads would detect my location as | null. | | Maybe it's more effective in places like the US. | dopidopHN wrote: | No, I'm randomly placed 2 states away. A solid day of | driving. | rrwo wrote: | IP-based location is mostly usable for country. I've rarely | found it gets the city right, often it doesn't even get the | county right. | pifm_guy wrote: | Less than half the population has decent geolocation by IP. | Most people the IP address will only identify the country | or even nothing at all. | | Not much use if you want to search bakery's. | froggit wrote: | Google is my ISP. My geolocated IP is accurate within a | 15 mile radius. It doesn't matter if I have location | services turned off or I'm using my desktop, searching | "bakeries near me" finds them without issue. | | I suspect that isn't all just one big coincidence. | toast0 wrote: | Google has what 3 or 4 cities where they operate as an | ISP, each with a pretty small footprint. It's no surprise | anyone knows where you are. | | A cable or telephone company has generalized coverage | measured in states; some of them organize their network | and customer IPs by small geographies, but sometimes all | of southern california is in a single pool of IPs. | michaelt wrote: | Not in my country - unless your ISP is in the business of | selling customer PII to advertisers ( _cough_ virgin | _cough_ ) your IP geolocation will often be a completely | different city. | | Of course, personally if I wanted to search for nearby | bakeries on my phone I'd have just opened the google maps | app.... | startupsfail wrote: | What we see is likely the attempt to squeeze even more juice | from advertising over which Google virtually have a monopoly. | Google is trying to continue its exponential growth while | relying on selling advertisements. The market had already | been saturated and optimised to crazy levels. Smart thing | would be to expand to other sources of revenue, but other | projects inside Google fail. As they are failing to compete | internally for resources against that crazily optimised | source of revenue. | | It is doubtful that Google can overcome that internally. | Perhaps regulators should break up the monopoly in | advertisement and search. | qwery wrote: | > if I'm searching "bakery" on my mobile phone I probably | want the ones around me | | Only when you're using a phone? Only if you're not at home? | What if you want to find out what a bakery is? | | (Apologies for rapid fire, I'm not having a go at you, just | curious) | nolok wrote: | > Only when you're using a phone? | | No, eg when I'm at the office, and we talk about where to | go eat and I type restaurant, or I need a new stapler and I | type office supply, etc ... | | > Only if you're not at home? | | Not really, eg "movie theater" or "flower shop" come to | mind for things I would request while at home | | > What if you want to find out what a bakery is? | | I would type what is a bakery or define bakery ? | | I'm a long time tech user, I miss the days of keyword | centric search as I felt I could more easily communicate to | the search engine what I wanted, but let's be honest those | days have passed, most people type sentence and thus the | engine interpret sentences | johannes1234321 wrote: | There isn't a necessity for an "or" | | One could show a map preview of local results, which can be | expanded as well as generic search results below/aside/... | rrwo wrote: | It makes sense to use geolocation for search. It's not just for | searching for businesses, as the meaning of a word you are | searching for will depend on where you are. | | IP-based geolocation isn't very reliable. And if people are using | VPNs then it's useless. | gatefun wrote: | As others have noticed, this is not a new move. For the past | several years I've been accessing Google Maps simply by typing in | maps.google.com and it has always redirected me to | google.com/maps. | Tepix wrote: | It's new for me as well. I hadn't seen google.com/maps before. | hbn wrote: | Even more confusing and a regular cause of annoyance for me | that's been ongoing for a while now is there's like a knockoff | version of Google Maps built into Google search that it'll kick | you into if you click a map from search results. e.g. you type | "gyms near me" and it shows you a map in the search results, | and you click it to expand. It's still at the google.com/search | domain and while you can zoom and pan around, there doesn't | seem to be a way to arbitrarily jump into street view wherever | you want, which I frequently want to do. | | I'm constantly ending up in this view, fighting with it before | remembering I need to go to real Google Maps and do my search | again. | AaronNewcomer wrote: | Same. It's so annoying and I feel like they do not always | include the relevant info like the URL in that mode. Though | looking now I did not find examples of that. | brazed_blotch wrote: | Funny, for me it's the opposite. I always try to use the web | view, and there's an annoying pop up that redirects me to | download Google maps. When I switch back into the web browser | to go back to the web view, it auto redirects me to the app | download again. Super annoying. | dark-star wrote: | > Congratulations, you now have permission to geo-track me across | all of your services. | | I don't think Google needed to do this move to track you across | their services. Pretty sure they were able to do that before. | dspillett wrote: | This makes it problematical to block. Previously you could give | location permission to map.google.com and not elsewhere. Now | you can't be more selective: remove permission from | search/other and maps stops working (or doesn't work as well). | | As others have pointed out, there are technical benefits too - | but most (all?) of these technical benefits are essentially | because it works around features designed to limit the scope of | permissions. | kaimalcolm wrote: | Has this not been the case for a while? I think I've been getting | /maps for at least the past year. | [deleted] | toastal wrote: | Yep. Noticed when I didn't want to enable JS on the whole of | Google's domain in mBlock Origin. I switch to another browser | for this task alone--especially as some regions have incomplete | data for OpenStreetMap | rtsil wrote: | the /maps URL worked for a while, but I never noticed the | redirect from maps.google.com (but I wasn't paying attention to | that). | pifm_guy wrote: | A bit reason for using separate subdomains originally is because | there are security benefits. | | If there is an XSS attack that leaks cookies from Google Keep, | you would prefer that not get your cookie for Google Maps. | | As browser security models have evolved, subdomains are no longer | as isolated as top level domains, so I dunno... | saltcured wrote: | I think the main issue here is people conflate the security | boundaries defined by the website operators with the security | or privacy boundaries a user might want to enforce. The web | origin chosen for the service operator's XSS sandbox is not | necessarily what a privacy-focused user wants. It's only useful | when a trustworthy operator is designing for the benefit of the | user. | | There should really be a more granular way for the user's | policy to adjust the origin definitions used for cross-origin | logic as well as other types of content blocking and | enforcement. | | Why shouldn't a user be able to isolate | https://example.com/app1 as much as https://app1.example.com? | | Why shouldn't they be able to grant any permission to be used | in a single page https://example.com/app1/usefulpage and not in | other pages on the site? | | The multi-container approach to browser session isolation faces | the same issues. Different users may have different preferences | for when navigation shares the session and when navigation | should kick you into a new session that lacks authentication, | tracking, or app state. | jimlikeslimes wrote: | Genuine question. Is it reasonable as a user to expect data | collected by Google via maps.google.com to not be shared with | other Google applications e.g. mail.google.com? | | I'd have thought data collected on any of their domains would be | meshed/merged behind the scenes where it suits them to do so? | fcantournet wrote: | I'm ok with sharing my location with maps (and therefore | google) WHILE USING MAPS. Not when I'm reading my emails, or | searching for something on the web. | pjc50 wrote: | Ask your local Information Commissioner whether this is GDPR- | compliant. | stubish wrote: | I think it is reasonable to expect Google to share the data and | get sued for it, because it isn't reasonable. | jimlikeslimes wrote: | Oh having though about it I agree, I just think we're | probably a minority. | | As others have pointed out the line has been blurred between | search and maps so far that maps has search embedded, and | search has maps embedded. A lot users of Google search likely | expect results to be location aware without realising what | privacy has been eroded to enable that. | rightbyte wrote: | The different Google Apps surely rat you out to each other. | | But now google.com will know where he is when he browses it, | not just when he uses Google Maps. | raziel2p wrote: | I think the concern is more about when Google is able to | collect said data, not whether it's shared or not. | | I don't have location enabled for Google maps in the browser, | but if I did, then presumably Google could collect that data | also when I'm just searching for a website. | dclowd9901 wrote: | But isn't collected/shared inherently the same thing here? | theptip wrote: | No, what they are talking about is all Google properties | (eg Google search) now being able to collect your location | every time you use them, if you granted permission for maps | to get your location. | | So it's now not possible to block location for search, and | grant it to maps (at least using the standard browser | domain permissions model). | | https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/114662?hl=en&co=GE | N... | luckylion wrote: | But they could've been doing that all along because they | control both sites, they would've just needed to use an | iFrame. What changed beyond "it's a little easier now"? | theptip wrote: | Is that how browser permissions work? Naively I'd assume | the browser grants only search.google.com permissions on | that url, even if maps.google.com is opened as an iframe. | luckylion wrote: | It's been ages since I've played with iframes, but I'm | pretty sure it does (or at least did?). You might have to | specify an allow policy [0] but that's no problem if you | control both sides. Since iframes are secure, data | wouldn't leak unless the iframe explicitly posts it. | | I don't know if you can request permissions from the | iframe (might confuse people), but if you already have | them, it ought to be fine. | | [0] https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-permissions- | policy/blob/mai... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | FWIW, there's an EU regulation coming that prevents companies | from using data necessary for a product (like maps) to be used | to improve a different product (like search). | neodymiumphish wrote: | I'd be interested to find out whether this works as intended. | There's a good argument that maps is a subset of search. Most | people don't open Google maps just to look at a map, they | search the map for a place. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | IIUC, maps would send your location to search if-and-only- | if you make a search from inside maps, since that is | necessary to do the precise location-based search. | iglio wrote: | I think the concern is less about other Google businesses | having access to maps data as you suggest. | | It's more about the fact that using non map Google services on | google.com will not prompt asking for location service | permissions, if they've been granted when prompted on | google.com/maps already. | | Users may not want location to be collected for searches, but | are okay with the privacy tradeoff for it being collected when | using maps. | JOnAgain wrote: | They can already join your activity across everything. This is | about access and collection. So if they move store.google.com | to google.com/store, they will have access to all browser | permissions you gave google.com/maps or google.com/flights. | dsr_ wrote: | Do you mean: | | - is it reasonable for a user to expect that Google will | collect all bits of information about them, because Google | isn't prevented from doing that? | | or | | - is it reasonable for a society to allow Google (and | competitors) to do this? | | I think the answers are respectively yes and no. | radu_floricica wrote: | Applications are not juridical entities, so at the absolute | best it is debatable. | | Most probable version is that they share as much data as their | internal regulations say, or a bit more. They definitely have | some form of internal regs on this, for basic security hygiene, | but they write it. | makeitdouble wrote: | It could be tricky with permissions on different users: for | instance you authorize google.com/maps to track your location | while logged as user A. | | You logout and switch to user B to look at another Google | service, but google.com is still allowed to get your location, | and will stick it to user B, which is something you might not | have wanted. This didn't happen with the previous domains, so | could be a surprise. | newaccount74 wrote: | It's even worse with their iOS apps. | | I've tried to avoid logging into my Google account on Safari on | my iPhone because I am scared of them tracking me, but I also | wanted to use the Google Keep app for sharing a shopping list | with my partner. | | But when you launch the Google Keep app, iOS asks you whether you | want to allow the app to share data with "google.com". It turns | out that there is no way to sign into the Google Keep app without | also signing into Google in Safari! I don't know how this works, | but it is horrible! If I want to use a Google app on my phone, I | basically have to give them permission to track me everywhere! | darren_ wrote: | > It turns out that there is no way to sign into the Google | Keep app without also signing into Google in Safari! | | If you're wondering why you're getting downvoted it's because | this isn't true at all. I'm signed into (several) iOS google | apps and my Safari browser is not signed into google. | newaccount74 wrote: | Please tell me how! | | All I know is that I was not able to sign into Google Keep | without accepting the data sharing prompt, and I was signed | into my Google account in Safari after logging into the | Google Keep app. It was of course possible to sign out of | Safari afterwards. | | I don't know how to reproduce the issue. I've tried | uninstalling the Google Keep app, to trigger the alert again, | but when I reinstall the app it remembers my Google account! | | I'm really surprised how hard it is to get these cookies or | app preferences or whatever off my device after signing in | once. | | EDIT: It seems the Google Keep app stores my account in the | iOS keychain and there is no way to delete the item from the | keychain without deleting all data on the phone, so I can't | reproduce the "new device" situation easily. | | However, if I try to add a new account, I get the same | dialog. It says something like (rough translation) "Google | Keep wants to use google.com for logging in. If you allow | this, the app and the website are allowed to share data about | your person". | | If I tap "cancel" in this alert, I can't log in. | | So as far as I can tell, what I said is correct. Maybe it was | different in the past, but this is what the situation on iOS | 16 currently looks like. | teekert wrote: | Firefox containers to the rescue. | hdjjhhvvhga wrote: | Probably the best tech we have against tech giants today. I | mean, heavier solutions exist (like QubesOS), FF containers are | so easy to use, I hope more people learn they exist. | Namari wrote: | Does it also contain permissions you give to a website? Will it | block it if run within a container? | deng wrote: | > Does it also contain permissions you give to a website? | Will it block it if run within a container? | | No. | deng wrote: | How? Access to location will stick regardless if you use | containers or not. | teekert wrote: | If you put all G-services in their own container, | google.com/mail can't access google.com/maps cookies, so, | will it also not track location. Not sure actually, they | indeed probably store your "consent" on their server. Could | you block location services per container perhaps? | | Hmm this is a smart move indeed, all of a sudden I'm logged | into G-maps whereas I wasn't before... FireFox helpfully | opened google.com/maps in my Google container... | deng wrote: | > google.com/mail can't access google.com/maps cookies, so, | will it also not track location | | google.com has now direct access to your location, it | doesn't need any cookies. | _flux wrote: | But it "doesn't" know who you are if you have not logged | in. Or do you mean that the permission isn't container- | specific? | | (Of course it can probably make a pretty good guess, just | as well it could do before this change.) | teekert wrote: | Would be nice if you could spoof or block access to your | location per FF container. I'll see if I can put in a | feature request. | m5r wrote: | I've been using Mozilla's extension[0] that contains everything | Facebook-related automatically with Firefox containers and it's | been working great. | | This morning I looked for a similar extension for Google and | I've found this fork[1] of Mozilla's extension. It's working as | expected so far but I'd love for it to be officially maintained | by Mozilla at some point. There is an open issue about it[2]. | | [0] https://github.com/mozilla/contain-facebook | | [1] https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google | | [2] https://github.com/mozilla/contain-facebook/issues/758 | russianGuy83829 wrote: | Mozilla probably gets too much money from google to do this | Eleison23 wrote: | I don't use the maps.google.com URL anymore because, 99% of the | time, I use the app. Whether it's the PWA desktop app on Windows, | or the Android app on my phone, I just don't go to the website of | Google properties anymore, I use them through an app and that | doesn't expose a raw URL. | coffeeblack wrote: | This is actually something that browsers can mitigate. Allow | users to give tracking permissions not only for subdomains, but | also for paths. Deny: google.com/* | Allow: google.com/flights | | Something like that. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Yeah but, the biggest browser is Chrome, by Google; they have | an incentive to allow tracking and access across their | services. | vanilla_nut wrote: | Indeed. If you use Chrome, you should just assume that your | location is shared with Google at all times, since they | likely collect it via telemetry anyway. | | If you use Firefox, assume your location is always shared | with Mozilla via telemetry... and likely indirectly to Google | as well, since they use Google Analytics for so much of their | infra. | | Likewise for Apple/Google/Microsoft collecting data from | iOS/macOS/Android/Windows. And of course your cellular | provider. | | As far as I know the only way to ensure your personal data | isn't shared with your browser publisher is to use a | verifiable, open source browser that has telemetry disabled, | like Iceweasel or Librewolf. And an open source, verifiable | OS with telemetry disabled, like... Fedora, maybe? Manjaro? | But you're being spied on by your ISP or cellular provider | anyway, and the US government indirectly through your ISP and | cell provider. And let's be honest, foreign governments | through some combination of ISP/cellular provider/govt | backdoors. | | Oh, and if you've read "Trusting Trust" you'll know that even | OSS isn't necessarily verifiable unless you wrote the | compiler yourself from scratch. | | So I'm not sure there's much benefit to any of it? | LoganDark wrote: | > Oh, and if you've read "Trusting Trust" you'll know that | even OSS isn't necessarily verifiable unless you wrote the | compiler yourself from scratch. | | And even a compiler you wrote yourself from scratch isn't | necessarily verifiable unless you designed from scratch the | hardware that you used to write it. Almost nobody knows | what those Management Engines are doing! | coffeeblack wrote: | Chrome users are probably okay with tracking anyway, but | Firefox, Brave, Vivaldi, etc could implement more fine | grained controls. Not only for geolocation. | asadotzler wrote: | I don't think DOM permissions are going to stop Google if they | want to share the data between services. | Tozen wrote: | Most people don't check their accounting settings, to see the | massive amounts of data that Google is collecting on them or the | amount of tracking they are doing. Even if a person adjusts the | settings, its not really known to what extent the continual | collection is actually mitigated or privacy is being ensured. To | include users data being sent to 3rd parties or governments at | Google's prerogative or their employees, or to the extent results | and services are manipulated for Google's own internal purposes | and benefit. | syliconadder wrote: | I already assumed this was the case to begin with, so I sold my | soul even before it was up for auction. | notorandit wrote: | Now? | | On my PC this is happening since years! | ghusto wrote: | I got this a couple of years ago, and noticed immediately. Just | as quickly denied the request, because I have fingers and can | type my current address. It's a minor inconvenience. | tasuki wrote: | > because I have fingers and can type my current address | | How would you always know your current address? I often use | maps with gps to find out where I am. Many places _have no | address_. | ghusto wrote: | Not trying to be snarky, but it might be that I don't get | what you mean: I just look at the street name, which is | posted on every street? I've never been anywhere that has no | address at all, but I guess in those situations it wouldn't | make any difference if I only knew roughly (like when I'm | camping?). | bmacho wrote: | I use maps only for route planning. If I don't know where I | am, I use an offline GPS. | bmacho wrote: | I never type my current address but a location nearby. (I am | sure that google know exactly where am I, still..) | Sebguer wrote: | Now if someone could just update movies.google.com to point to | literally anything else. | [deleted] | iambateman wrote: | Maybe they think the subfolder approach will help their SEO. | pharmakom wrote: | Yuck! | | Any suggestions for an good open street maps app on iOS? | | Offline capability would be a huge plus. | aembleton wrote: | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mapy-cz-navigation-maps/id4114... | mnd999 wrote: | Isn't Apple Maps that? They use openstreetmap in a lot of | places. | lapcat wrote: | I've been seeing this redirect for literally years. It's not new. | nigamanth wrote: | The chances are, geotracking or not google knows a lot about you | and this just adds on to the data. | bambax wrote: | HN title "moderation" (ie, arbitrary ex post facto editing) is | frankly infuriating. It doesn't add meaning, it removes it. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | This made me think how much would I lose if I'll just block all | *.google.com domains in the browser? I was using DDG for search | and Firefox for browsing for many years without problems, but I | also still use Gmail and Google docs (or whatever they are called | these days, Google for Work?). Maybe, a blanket ban plus a few | exceptions like mail.google.com, docs.google.com, | tables.google.com and drive.google.com would not cripple my | workflow too much. | whym wrote: | > (or whatever they are called these days, Google for Work?) | | Gmail is currently branded as part of Google Workspace, and | shows the Workspace logo upon sign in. It probably has been | that way architecturarly for a long time, but I think they have | made it more explicit relatively recently, at least for non- | corporate users. | | It looks like "Google for Work" is an old name of Google | Workspace. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Like their chat apps, they change names so often that I just | call them Google Docs most of the time. | chrismorgan wrote: | Some years back (my memory suggests somewhere between early | 2017 and early 2019), Google moved reCAPTCHA to www.google.com, | so now anything that uses reCAPTCHA (and that's a _lot_ , far | more than is reasonable when I contemplate the absurdly high | efficacy of a simple hidden-by-CSS honeypot when it's just junk | you're filtering rather than targeted abuse) depends upon | www.google.com frame, script and xhr, and www.gstatic.com | script. | | There may have been other reasons as well, but I have been | strongly inclined to consider this a hostile and even malicious | action (organisationally, if not individually) from the start, | more than the maps.google.com - www.google.com/maps shift | (though I think it's still at least hostile). | | Thus you probably can't quite block even www.google.com even if | you never use any Google services yourself. | Izkata wrote: | ...this redirect has been in place for years. Honestly maybe even | a decade at this point, it's been a _long_ time. | Jowsey wrote: | I've also been using earth.google.com etc for many years, can | confirm not new at all | pmontra wrote: | Google has been prompting me with an Accept / Reject dialog on | Maps and YouTube for years. It used to be split in several | sections but luckily it became only two buttons a few months ago. | I click reject and start mapping / watching. | api wrote: | I've noticed that Google searches often request location. I never | say yes but most people will to maps. So yeah this makes sense... | as a way to make sure I don't use Google. | lakomen wrote: | This title is as clickbaity as it gets | durnygbur wrote: | You guys are still using google and dreaming about working for | them?! | maxfurman wrote: | It just started doing this now? I've been using google.com/maps | for years, and that isn't the canonical address? | avar wrote: | It asked my for the permission earlier. I thought I'd granted it | already and I didn't notice the sneaky domain switch, I've now | revoked it. | | I wish browsers had a more granular way to grant this and other | permissions. E.g. Firefox just has allow/deny, and then | "remember". | | Granting it only if the user clicks the "show my location" UI | element on the web page would be a closer match to user | expectations, and would preclude pages from getting the | permission in the background. | | Of course that would introduce extra complexity, e.g. worrying | about web pages sneakily making normal looking links the "get | location" UX element. | | There's probably no secure way to do it except for the webpage to | communicate that it's a page that might want your location, and | for the browser to show the "send my location" UX element itself | (e.g. in the toolbar). | fragmede wrote: | This changed yesterday? What the hell? Don't you people know | there's a freeze going on? | [deleted] | xvector wrote: | I wonder if this is why the mega-app model is so common for | Chinese companies. It's far easier to justify collecting a | million permissions when your app does a million things. | dspillett wrote: | I think that is more a resurrection of the department store and | mega-corp models: if you do a bit of everything then the bottom | falling out of one market won't affect you badly as the other | areas can soak up the temporary loss. Also, if you have | positive name recognition in some areas this can benefit the | others, and there is a passive advertising pressure of people | using you for one thing seeing something else you have in store | or linked to your name (where a more organic search to fulfil a | need might be as likely to lead to a competitor as to you). | | The difference that might break this analogy being that with a | mega-app there isn't really a diversity of revenue streams | despite the diversity of products/features: it all comes down | to stalking to be able to better sell advertising. | gjadi wrote: | Funny thing is, it depends on your threat model. | | Using google.com/XXX for all its services protect the user from | being spied by external actors such as ISP because everything is | hidden behind HTTPS. | | Whereas, with XXX.google.com, external actors knows that you are | using service XXX. | Havoc wrote: | The whole "threat model" thinking is useful for security, but I | don't think it translates well to privacy and data sharing | consent matters. | gjadi wrote: | I disagree on the former, but I agree on the later, | technology is not a good substitute for consent. | | Regarding the privacy: | | If you are using a VPN to protect your privacy, then you are | effectively transferring your trust from your ISP to your VPN | provider. The VPN provider is your new ISP. So you have to | make sure you trust the VPN provider more than your ISP. | nvr219 wrote: | I don't use VPN when I'm on my home ISP but I do when I'm | someplace where I don't control the gateway. My VPN is on a | vultr VPS I control (in as much as I can control a VPS), | and I do trust vultr (or digitalocean or any of the major | VPS providers) more than I trust, let's say, the person who | set up the wifi at the holiday inn. | tempera wrote: | It is a matter of trust, but by choosing a VPN you are not | limited in your options by your geographical location as is | the case with an ISP. | | In my town there are 2 ISP I can choose to trust, whereas | with VPN I can choose to trust from a much greater | selection. | Lockal wrote: | Google could enable ESNI, if they wanted. | Crosseye_Jack wrote: | I presume they are talking about the DNS "leak". | | google.com/maps would result in a DNS request for google.com | so anyone monitoring DNS would know they are connecting to a | google service but wouldn't know which one. | | maps.google.com would result in a DNS request that show they | are connecting to maps.google.com and could presume they want | some maps. | | DoH (and ESNI on the server side) would fix it, but iirc | Chrome (the most used browser) doesn't use DoH by default. | vetinari wrote: | Chrome uses DoT, if you have configured one of the well- | known resolvers that do support DoT. Otherwise, it respects | your local settings. | Crosseye_Jack wrote: | My point about Chrome is not that it can't do DoH but by | default it doesn't so relies on the system settings which | for the vast majority of users (not us geeks who | explicitly opt in) never change and use ISP supplied | values so DNS snooping is still a thing for the majority. | | Should a browser override system settings? That's another | question, because doing so can impact other things for | the avg Joe. For example my mobile providers self serve | website plays up when I use custom DNS, free hotspots | with captive portals also can be an issue when you | override the DNS provided by the access point. | vetinari wrote: | I understand your point, but anyway, no app, no browser | should ever think that "it knows better" and attempt to | fix what it considers incorrect. It may think that it | protects the user, but in reality, it will break what the | user configured. Private DNS zones are common, and if the | browser ignores user configured DNS, they will break. And | as I wrote elsewhere, just because the machine is | configured to use 53/udp for a resolver, it doesn't mean | that the resolver is forwarding over 53/udp too. | | If you want to solve unsafe defaults, this is not the | way. Pushing for configuring safe defaults is. | asadotzler wrote: | If a general purpose browser can empower hundreds of | millions or even billions of regular users with better | privacy (and ultimately, security) by making a change | that might disrupt a small handful of power users who | manually configure this stuff, I say the browser should | go for it. The power users are the very people who can, | without much effort at all, reconfigure their stuff, or | easily find a special purposed browser, so they'll be | just fine. | | Spock was right, logic clearly dictates that the needs of | the many outweigh the needs of the few. | Crosseye_Jack wrote: | The problem I fear is the needs of the few who are not | technology minded, don't want their browser (or in their | eyes their internet connection) to stop working because | their ISP issued router uses a DNS based captive portal | to onboard people (I've seen this used by atleast one | major ISP in the UK to on-board devices onto their per- | device content filtering system - BT, however I think | they rolled back on that after it was caused issues with | IOT devices). | | However I believe (not read the docs in a while) FireFox | works around this by falling back to DNS if an issue with | DoH is detected. | | EDIT: However I'm still on the fence if it should be a | browser decision. Yes browsers move more quickly then OS | & ISP changes and can make things better for the masses | quickly, but i'm also wary of those changes screwing up | the avg person, the people like my mother who can just | about order things online via her ipad but thats about | it, if she accidentally lowers the screen brightness of | her ipad I soon get a call about it. Its for those kind | of people I don't like the idea of a browser messing | around with a connection in unknown network conditions. | iggldiggl wrote: | ..., I get the "wrong" IP for anything hosted by Akamai | (i.e. an IP address that corresponds to a part of their | CDN which has abysmal peering with my ISP and is | completely unusable in the evening) | CydeWeys wrote: | Even if you are using DoT, the DNS provider will still | know you're using Maps if it resolved the subdomain, and | the DNS provider itself might well be the biggest privacy | threat here. | imajoredinecon wrote: | > iirc Chrome (the most used browser) doesn't use DoH by | default. | | Last I checked, Linux was behind other platforms because | there's a lot of complex custom dns configuration that | chrome (understandably) didn't want to be accused of | overriding/ignoring, but which isn't all easily visible to | the browser | vetinari wrote: | Which is the correct behavior; if the user wants to | configure his computer to DoT/DoH, system resolver is the | correct place and Chrome has to respect it. | | Even if the computer is using 53/udp to the configured | local resolver in the local network, it doesn't mean that | the resolver itself is using 53/udp. Many of them can | forward queries using DoT/DoH/IPoAC and the app on the | users computer will be none the wiser. | luckylion wrote: | > DoH (and ESNI on the server side) would fix it, but iirc | Chrome (the most used browser) doesn't use DoH by default. | | It would fix it for some specific circumstances. Since | maps.google.com resolves differently than www.google.com, | you can ignore DNS and just look at TCP connections to tell | what service is being talked to. | Crosseye_Jack wrote: | Granted that Google is basically the exception here. But | when I query the IP's for maps.google.com I get | 142.250.179.238 and when I query google.com I get | 142.250.200.14 | | If make a http get request to 142.250.179.238/ (the maps | IP) but with the host header set to "www.google.com" I | get the search page returned to me. If I make a http get | request to 142.250.200.14/maps I get google maps. | | OK. /maps might be a bad example because well | google.com/maps is already a thing :-p | | So if I make a request to 142.250.179.238 with the host | youtube.com I get youtube. This is because most of | googles public facing servers can act as the front door | for many other google services not just the service that | its dns is set to. | | Not really sure it it comes under "domain fronting" | because isn't that tactic many used to bypass censorship, | pretend your connecting to one CloudFront customer when | really wish to connect to another. Where google explictly | configured their services to do this so they can easily | load balance as demand and network conditions allow. | Anyways I'm rambling now. | | My point is, with google you can't rely on the ip address | alone to determine the service (however it still wouldn't | stop you peeking into connection and pulling out the host | header unless ESNI was used) but as I said at the start, | Google is more the exception here. | mrjin wrote: | Google poses a larger threat to most people I guess. | [deleted] | pygy_ wrote: | I'm pretty sure you can still identify specific services from | trafic patterns. It is more expensive, but within reach for | well funded actors. | nottorp wrote: | The threat here is google. | gjadi wrote: | If your threat is google, it would be wise not to use google | in the first place. | | As other mentioned, OSM is an alternative (not equivalent) of | Google Maps. | godzillabrennus wrote: | If only there was a drop in replacement for Google | Workspace... even if you use Fastmail for email you don't | have Google docs anymore and that's a huge piece... | nottorp wrote: | The worse problem is you give Maps location permissions | and that can translate now to the 3 billion sites that | use Analytics isn't it? | luckylion wrote: | No, google-analytics.com is where analytics is being | served from and sends tracking-requests to. | easrng wrote: | It also connects to | https://stats.g.doubleclick.net/j/collect | luckylion wrote: | I believe that's only if the GA account is connected to | an Ads account (or set up to collect demographics, I | think). By itself, GA will only use https://www.google- | analytics.com/j/collect (or /g/collect for GA4). | sgammon wrote: | drop in replacement for Google Workspace? | | has everybody forgotten it was replacing Microsoft? | WhyNotHugo wrote: | You might want to check out: | | https://framapad.org/abc/ (this organisation has a lot of | FLOSS cloud alternatives to Google products) | | https://cryptpad.fr/ | samwestdev wrote: | DNS over HTTPS is the solution here. | netheril96 wrote: | SNI is still in the plaintext. | vetinari wrote: | It it still an improvement; you need to DPI the traffic | then, which is more demanding than just logging 53/udp | queries. | SkyPuncher wrote: | Anyone who is trying to invade your privacy is going to | do DPI. | | My prosumer grade harder does DPI without any issue. | ddalex wrote: | Doesn't change the fact that the SNI is sent in clear text. | NavinF wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Encryp | t... | [deleted] | [deleted] | AtNightWeCode wrote: | It is for SEO. Maps product will ride on the widely used | google.com domain. ;) | calibas wrote: | According to my browser's history, March 31st, 2022 was the last | time maps.google.com didn't perform a redirect. | bluepnume wrote: | Also a great way to share cookies, avoid CORS, and probably a | zillion other complexities that result from running on multiple | subdomains. | lima wrote: | And to increase XSS blast radius! | deepstack wrote: | thought they have moved mail.google.com to google.com/mail a | while ago. Tracking would still be possible over 2 domain, but | then google would have to do a bit of ETL operations. Guess | this will save some more engineering. | ilyt wrote: | It's funny for browser vendor to push those "security" | features, only to work around them in their own products | mananaysiempre wrote: | I actually find that somewhat reassuring, similarly to a | Google employee criticising the security practices of a | Google-operated certificate authority in public[1]: it | demonstrates that the team responsible for instituting | security policies in the interest of users still has some | autonomy. | | [1] e.g. | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1709223#c19 | oblio wrote: | Yeah, but do you want to bet that during the management call | and the subsequent engineering call that made this decision, | the main topic of discussion was the direct financial benefit | from improved tracking? | | We'll never know, but if we could find out, say 1 year from | now, I'd bet 100:1 that was the main driver. | rickdangerous1 wrote: | Wow...i didn't for even a second think it was anything other | than a way to get a financial benefit. Kudos to you for not | be as cynical as me. | functionstooge wrote: | The 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. Because it reduces | complexity you will likely see a financial benefit from the | cost of the engineering team alone. Having managed an | infrastructure with a ton of subdomains I can say that it's | almost certainly in their best interest to standardize the | domain across all tools at least for engineering. Your data | is just an added bonus :) | [deleted] | RobertRoberts wrote: | They did this with Gmail years ago. Same scheme, I warned | everyone that gmail.com would change over to a google related | domain, and it didn't take long. And I tried to explain how it | meant every email could be directly related to your internet | traffic. | | "What do I have to hide?" was always the response... | jsnell wrote: | I don't believe your alleged change happened. Gmail was hosted | under google.com literally from the day it launched [0]. | | [0] http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2004/04/google-gets- | message-... | RobertRoberts wrote: | It did, I watched it explicitly for this reason, but I guess | unless it's documented somewhere, oh well. It was even | googlemail.com for awhile. | | Edit: It's possible my concern was the subdomain and my | memory is off. It moved from a subdomain to a /gmail at one | point (or something similar). That is when I swore off it. | | What clearly recall is that there was something wrong, either | it was how it did a redirect to google.com first and then | back or shared cookies in a very sneaky way that alerted me. | (I was building sites at the time and I was privacy | conscience early on in my career) | jsnell wrote: | Sure, this is what that Wikipedia page says: | | > As of 22 June 2005, Gmail's canonical URI changed from | http://gmail.google.com/gmail/ to | http://mail.google.com/mail/. | | As you can see from your own source, the canonical URL has | always been under google.com, not under gmail.com. | | Edit: the parent post was originally linking to | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail, before | being edited | codeflo wrote: | I noticed that Google Search itself has very recently become much | more aggressive about asking for location permission. | Coincidence, or is collecting more location data someone high | up's KPI for the year? | r0m4n0 wrote: | On another note, I feel like EVERY day my iPhone asks me if I | want to share my location with google. I'll be searching | something in Safari on google that's obviously location based and | I get a dialog that pops up. I have allowed it 100s of times. | | https://imgur.com/gallery/LleCkEo | | I hate this and don't want to see it ever again. Allow always, | allow never, I don't care. This reminds me of the GDPR popups... | I feel like once you have popups everywhere, they lose their | value and become an annoyance | r0m4n0 wrote: | Just FYI. After this rant, looked it up and apparently you can | set in OS settings to allow for all websites, or deny for all | websites. No granular control though | dislikedtom2 wrote: | I have never shared my location via browser, including google | maps. Still, google very well knows where I live and focuses on | my home as default, when I open google maps. I'm curious what do | you seek by sharing your location with google (maps)? | nroets wrote: | Perhaps your home router has a public IP. Google gets the | location of the home router from just one Android phone | connecting to it. I'm guessing. | | But some home routers are behind CGNAT infrastructure: Then | it's possible that TCP connections from the same browser can go | through different public IP addresses. | | Sharing the location helps Google to help users. And Google to | target ads better. | [deleted] | deafpolygon wrote: | This is also so they can invade your privacy, and correlate all | of your searches to your geolocation. | mkagenius wrote: | Its reverse for translate. https://google.com/translate redirects | to translate.google.com | nroets wrote: | I can understand why: Translate is the only service that works | in China. Countries with censorship laws can easily choose what | they allow. | ellm wrote: | I suspect this may more be to do with large organisations | (and equally foreign governments) wanting to block Google | translate, since it can be used as a proxy in some cases. | netheril96 wrote: | They don't work in China anymore. | | And when they worked, the domain was translate.google.cn | instead. | __michaelg wrote: | This is a fantastic example of motivated reasoning. This "change" | (which apparently isn't even new) can have so many different | reasons, some of which are less harmful and some of which are | probably worse (privacy-wise) than the one mentioned here. There | is no indication that re/mis-using permissions is specifically | what they wanted to do here, there is also no example of them | doing it right now. Don't get me wrong, there is also no evidence | that this isn't the real reason and that they wouldn't do that in | the future. But the blog post basically list a single symptom and | jumps right to the one conclusion that fits what the author | expects. | akudha wrote: | My default mode is to trust everyone until they break my trust. | Now that I am old, I have realized that trusting everyone by | default is not a good idea, especially big tech. | | In cases like this, I think it is better to assume malice, even | if we are proved wrong later. This is not our fault, this is | big tech screwing with us repeatedly for years, with no shame | or conscience | matkoniecz wrote: | Also, by most reasonable metrics, Google broke that trust | long time ago anyway. | account42 wrote: | The way I see it, people deserve the benefit of the doubt | when it comes to their motivations but corporations don't. | kevincox wrote: | Exactly. If you trust people you will often be rewarded by | friendship and future help. If you trust cooportations they | just exploit that to maximize shareholder profit with no | value to me. | randomdata wrote: | Perhaps you mean _persons_ deserve the benefit of the | doubt? People seems to be the root problem. | | I expect there is no difference between an individual and a | corporation operated by a sole individual. If one is | trustworthy, they will remain equally trustworthy if they | happen to have a stock certificate in hand. The corporation | isn't able to act autonomously. It acts with equivalency to | the person it is represented by. | | Large corporations, involving people, is where | communication breaks down, which leads to unintended | consequences that wouldn't necessarily be realized if an | individual was acting alone. When you have people there are | bound to be competing interests created in the confusion | and it is not always a straightforward answer who is best | to honour. Even where intentions are pure humans are bound | to make mistakes in their choosing. | johannes1234321 wrote: | I think the question is whether a effective feedback loop | exists. | | If a local dealer does something bad they quickly receive | corresponding response. | | A big corp is detached and anonymous. As long as there is | no broad boycott there are rare cases where response | really reaches them. | | If a big corp has a sales force the sales force is | responsive to feedback, however the corp then quickly | turns anonymous to them and whatever they put in the | system doesn't reach the right places ... | kristianheljas wrote: | The only conclusion this article made is that google now has | the permission to-do so, and this is 100% correct - motivated | or not. Although, given you overly defensive response makes me | suspect you have more insight than we do.. | zython wrote: | I will accept motivated reasoning when in a friendly setting | but big tech is not my friend. Their only and only purpose is | to extract as much value (data or money) from me as possible. | | Looking at Heartbleed and other famous security we should know | that minor mistakes "disguised" as "typos" can have devastating | effects. | | They know what theyre doing alright. | johnchristopher wrote: | > But the blog post basically list a single symptom and jumps | right to the one conclusion that fits what the author expects. | | That conclusion isn't wrong though. Your comment basically | claims author is twisting facts but the conclusion remains that | giving google.com/maps permission to geotrack does give | google.com permission to geotrack. | | "Pinky swear I won't enforce that clause" is not reassurance | enough. | forgetfulness wrote: | They've promised nothing, to boot. Google does not deserve | the benefit of the doubt here. | stingraycharles wrote: | It may not be the only reason, but you're being too generous if | you don't think this was at least one of the reasons they did | it. | | Other than some abstract "branding" campaign, I cannot really | see many other reasons why they would be doing this. | | And as someone who worked in adtech in the past, it was very | well known that Google used their domain as their tracking | cookie domain as it's nearly impossible for adblockers to just | block without crippling other functionality. So they even have | a history of using precisely these types of techniques. | jstummbillig wrote: | > but you're being too generous if you don't think this was | at least one of the reasons they did it | | If you consider it absolutely unthinkable that it was not one | of the reasons, it's you who is being too generous. | Unconsidered side effects occur plentiful and all the time. | mrd999 wrote: | This is cute, but 100% no. In this case, those involved in | the decision were aware of the privacy implications. | Whether this was discussed openly, or whether the change | was made 'pass-the-buck' style, it doesn't really matter. | The association of privacy settings with domains is a well- | established basic function in the browser. | Ensorceled wrote: | > If you consider it absolutely unthinkable that it was not | one of the reasons, it's you who is being too generous. | | The person you are replying to didn't use the word | "unthinkable" or even imply it. | | I think you are being either incredibly naive or | disingenuous if you believe an adtech giant like google | doesn't factor changes to data gathering into every single | decision they make. | hooby wrote: | 1. The change does exist (although it apparently has been live | for quite some time in some regions at least) | | 2. The change does have the effect of Google gaining more | permissions (and subsequently more data) than previously | | 3. The author assumes that (2) is the (main) reason why (1) was | done in the first place | | Regardless of whether (3) is correct or completely wrong - and | regardless of whether the author truly believes (3), or only | uses it as a rhetorical trick to increase the controversy (and | therefore the reach) of their post - both (1) and (2) remain | fact. | | And (2) is the actual problem here - regardless of whether it | was done intentionally by Google or not. | delroth wrote: | > The change does have the effect of Google gaining more | permissions (and subsequently more data) | | There's a huge logic gap here. Obtaining more permissions | doesn't at all imply obtaining more data when it's caused by | an incidental change. Maybe the permissions aren't being used | outside of the Maps context, or maybe it doesn't matter | because the data was already be known. | bogwog wrote: | It's true that we can't really know whether Google is | exploiting these expanded permissions to collect more data | unless we have some insider information. | | However, it's generally very easy to predict what a company | is going to do by observing their business model and | incentive structure. In Google's case, collecting as much | data as possible is a major part of their business, so | without more information, there's no good reason to assume | they won't do it. | luckylion wrote: | > It's true that we can't really know whether Google is | exploiting these expanded permissions to collect more | data unless we have some insider information. | | You could track usage and see what pages on google.com | are accessing these APIs. | | I doubt that it's a lot. Google already has fairly good | geo-localization based on IP, GPS-level accuracy isn't | necessary for ads. They could've already connected your | data from maps.google.com to www.google.com, because both | are using consent.google.com and you're getting a | .google.com unique cookie. | | This is mostly just outrage because people don't | understand how things work. | creatonez wrote: | Google search asks for geolocation. So the permission | absolutely is being used. | ryantgtg wrote: | > 1. The change does exist (although it apparently has been | live for quite some time in some regions at least) | | Pretty sure I've been experiencing this change for many years | at this point. | __michaelg wrote: | Upvoted, this looks more correct than what I wrote. | hooby wrote: | As for (3) - there's no proof either way, as you already | said. | | But collecting more of that data which their marketing | business makes it's profits from, is likely to have a | positive effect on their bottom line. | | And since the change already has been live for a while in | some regions, it seems likely that Google is well aware of | how much impact this change has on their revenue. | | You decide for yourself if money is or isn't the reason why | a big corporation like Google would do something like that. | s3p wrote: | I think your original comment was spot on. The reply above | didn't really add anything imo. | Bud wrote: | __michaelg wrote: | Meta: my answer here is probably also a good example of | motivated reasoning because I likely read a bit more into what | the author wrote than is factually in the blog post. Oh boy. | garritfra wrote: | > Oh boy. | | Do you mind pointing out where you think this applies? | __michaelg wrote: | I think my critique is somewhat correct in that you seem to | suggest that this change was made to allow for expanding | the permissions from one product to all products, which I | don't think one can derive from the things we know. | | I think I was somewhat wrong in that I may have suggested | that you said this was the only reason (which you didn't | explicitly) and also in that I dismissed that they | factually can use these permissions from other products | now, i.e., no matter whether it was intended or not, the | permissions set for other products is broader now. | eternalban wrote: | > This is a fantastic example of motivated reasoning. | | Did we read the same short article? [not parody] | | It's so short, we can copy paste it here and then you can point | out where he reasoned that Google did this with intent to | track. | | > But the blog post basically list a single symptom and jumps | right to the one conclusion that fits what the author expects. | | OP is simply stating a consequence of this change! | | " _Congratulations, you now have permission to geo-track me | across all of your services._ " | D13Fd wrote: | I think it's the part where he says "Smart move, Google." | __michaelg wrote: | > [...] though I'm sure they're just beginning to transfer | their services to the main google.com domain. | | This and the wording across the article imply more than the | factual changes. But granted, hooby's comment above is | probably more correct than what I wrote. | trudler wrote: | bro, data is money and those corporates extract as much as they | can. don't try to reason that google would not be interested in | exactly that. one does not have to find a specific evidence for | exactly this scenario in my opinion. this evidence likely might | never emerge, while the spying definitely will happen. | otherwise you would need to come up with a huge scenario where | they actually farm a ton of benefits by doing this change, | because a move like that you don't "just do for a better | experience". | mrjin wrote: | Cannot agree more. Money is the most important if not the | sole driver of decision making in those large organizations. | dethos wrote: | The real reason or intention isn't that important, compared to | the outcomes of the change. The author correctly evaluated one | of those outcomes and the respective implications. | | Given Google's track record, I think it is a sensible | evaluation of the situation. | dclowd9901 wrote: | Are people really surprised when they hand their location off | to a domain that any other part of the domain might have access | to it? Like, taking away the technical specifics of how | location allows actually works, you've given the data to the | _company_. At the very least, they throw it on an internal | service and allow other parts of the company's infra to grab | it. | rkagerer wrote: | Even if it's entirely innocuous at present, that's still little | better. It would signal modern-day Google engineers lack the | nuanced understanding and user-first deliberation of their | predecessors. | | Given the breadth of services the company provides, a user | ought to be able to restrict the permission to the scope of the | maps tool. | croes wrote: | I think the grand master of user tracking and the developer of | the web's most used browser knows exactly what they are doing. | underdeserver wrote: | Google is huge. You'd be surprised how something that's | common knowledge in one team is completely unknown to other | teams. | arminiusreturns wrote: | Hanlons Razor is a fallacy on it's face and I'm so tired of | the incompetence excuse for actors who are repeatedly bad. | croes wrote: | I doubt that a URL change is the solely decision of the | maps team. | WhyNotHugo wrote: | The change may have happened for any of many reasons. | Regardless of which reason was the motivator, it's clear impact | is reducing user privacy. When talking about a | tracking/advertising company, so it's kinda natural to assume | that this was kept in mind. | darthrupert wrote: | When companies like Google are involved, I believe the Hanlon's | Razor works in reverse. I.e. never attribute to stupidity that | which is adequately explained by malice. | agumonkey wrote: | Didn't know this has a name. It feels that it's the main mode | of reasoning in society. | powerapple wrote: | Recently I have been trying to recover my gmail account. | Besides sending verification code to my phone number, it also | sent a code to YouTube app, high on the list. I have lost | access to my google account, so I cannot open my YouTube. So it | sent a verification code to the exact gmail address I am trying | to recover. The whole process is unreal. This YouTube | verification thing is definitely new, I don't know the | motivation behind it, it couldn't even detect if my YouTube App | was activate or not (or maybe it knows I wasn't using YouTube, | maybe it is encouraging me to log in YouTube or open YouTube. | Either way, I am not impressed. | bheadmaster wrote: | Privacy and intimacy, As we know it, Will be a | memory, Among many to be passed down To those who | never knew. Living in the pupil of one thousand eyes. | codeulike wrote: | Are you missing a Not operator in that last line? | bheadmaster wrote: | It's lyrics from a song - the last line sounds like a new | sentence, so it's punctuation that I'm probably missing. | | I've added it for clarity. | zshrdlu wrote: | What a pleasant surprise! I hadn't listened to _Symbolic_ in a | while. | npteljes wrote: | I was curious where this is from, and found it's from "1,000 | Eyes" from Death. | | https://genius.com/Death-1000-eyes-lyrics | Cockbrand wrote: | From 1995 - prophetic, almost. | torstenvl wrote: | Maybe they'll fix the ~5yo regression where a search for | from:City, ST to:Town, ST | | no longer results in the obvious (and previous) behavior. | canbus wrote: | https://www.openstreetmap.org | mcv wrote: | But is the app as good as Google's? I always struggle with OSM | maps. | | I think at the moment there's a massive discount on OsmAnd+. | Worth it? | therealmarv wrote: | Really depends, it can be much better than Google depending | on country/region. Google Maps is not in every country good. | Definitely better for any kind of outdoor activity like | hiking, bicycle, ski etc. and offline usage. | dbrgn wrote: | If you need OSM on Android, I can recommend: | | - "Organic Maps" (a fork of the old MapsMe codebase) if you | want a clean, simple user experience | | - "OSMAnd" if you want a very powerful, highly customizable map | application, which comes at the cost of a steeper learning | curve | | Both apps are open source and support navigation, offline maps | and POI search. | | The things I miss most compared to Google Maps is live traffic | information and the powerful search. However, this has a | privacy cost, so I generally try to use OSM first, and only | fall back to Google Maps (in the browser) if I really need to. | raybb wrote: | Lets not forget StreetComplete is a dead easy app to use to | help contribute to OSM. It just asks you a few questions like | "is this bench still here" or "is there a bike lane on this | road" etc | | https://streetcomplete.app/ | probably_wrong wrote: | Can I use this app to suggest issues? In one of my projects | I found a bunch of buildings that have either the wrong | direction or the wrong coordinates. Think "Random street 1, | 2 and 4 are next to each other, but Random street 3 is 500m | away". But since it's a city I don't live in I can't go | there in person and confirm. | marssaxman wrote: | I love this app and use it frequently. Great excuse to take | little walks around town. | vanderZwan wrote: | Organic Maps is also significantly more optimized in my | experience (or maybe a more fair thing to say would be: is | faster because it does less). So it pays to have both because | OM is basically the "fast path" for its use case in more ways | than just the interface. | mngnt wrote: | I'm a OSMand user and OSM contributor. However, sometimes I | hate the routing OSMand provides, taking me through narrow | streets with awkward turns. Wish they used GraphHopper... A | nice feature in OSMand is that even if you get the free | version off the Play store, if you log in with OSM and are | active, you get free map updates and all the "plus" | functions. And on top of that, the full plus version is | available off F-Droid. | | By the way, OSMand has some support for reporting traffic | issues (police, crashes), but it's very very limited due to | low adoption way below a critical mass. Also, reporting | traffic status would probably require OSMand to run a pretty | beefy server and get the current speed/traffic info from all | the users - many chose it exactly because they don't want | that. | dotancohen wrote: | Maybe you know. I've been told twice that OSMand can show | the altitude above sea level of a location, but I cannot | for the life of me figure out how. Have you any idea? | | Thanks! | ce4 wrote: | It's these steps: | | - go to pugins section and activate the contour lines | plugin | | - then go to download maps and load the contour lines | data for your region | | - go to configure map and check the show contour lines | option | | I think you need the f-droid Version or the paid pro | Playstore version or the subscription. Please note that | this will only show marked contour lines and not | interpolate/estimate the elevation for any point. So you | need to search for the next line and get your own idea | what that means for the specific location. Not ideal for | very flat areas with sparse contour lines. | | For the current position you can show GPS elevation | (settings, configure screen, widgets) | vanilla_nut wrote: | On iOS, I have mine configured to show the altitude in | the top right corner of the map view. The settings are | admittedly confusing but if you just poke around in the | map display settings you should find it! | somat wrote: | I hope the author of OSMAnd makes enough money from the play | store to finance continued development, because the | application is amazing, it has an interface that is not | dumbed down, it does not phone home to the mother ship, it | gives you great tracks, in short it is a great tool that | respects the end user. | | I wish more applications were like it, first thing I install | on my phone. | frxx wrote: | Both Organic Maps and OsmAnd are available on iOS as well. | ajuc wrote: | I use OSMand for walking and biking and it's great, much | better than Google Maps in my region. Just remember to choose | the right kind of traffic in the settings when starting | navigation. | | It's not as good for driving. | LoveMortuus wrote: | I have Organic Maps, because I thought it would be nice to | have in case of an emergency where I don't have internet, but | sadly just a few weeks ago, I had such a case and Organic | Maps couldn't find the address and the map itself didn't have | all the roads on it (nor satelite or topology map), so I | couldn't even use it as a normal map... In the end I had to | resort to one archaic ways and ask local humans for | directions... | | Google maps does offer being able to download for offline | use, but if you don't have internet it quite often doesn't | want to do navigation, unless you trick it with saved | directions. | | How does Garmin do it (I'm guessing map licencing issue)? | | And how come this isn't already a solved issue? | KronisLV wrote: | I also had some success with HERE maps: https://wego.here.com | | Their Android app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details | ?id=com.here.app.m... | | Their Apple app: https://apps.apple.com/app/id955837609 | | The performance is good (especially on a budget Android | device, better than the recent versions of Google Maps, | even), they're reasonably accurate (I'm in Eastern Europe) | and include navigation, traffic information, public | transportation, as well as the ability to save regions for | offline browsing. | | I can't comment on the company behind it, though, but it's a | nice alternative nonetheless (and there are simple prompts | for choosing whether you want to send them any data, e.g. to | enrich traffic information). | | Edit: as a criticism, some Android reviews suggest that | recent updates have made the app less performant than | previous versions, though I didn't notice anything in | particular on my current device (2020 budget phone). Some | also suggest that navigation needs more work. | dotancohen wrote: | From where do they get traffic information? The only viable | app that I've ever seen for traffic data is Waze, because | of the huge install base. I do remember HERE from when they | were a Nokia brand, but even with that history I think that | they'd be too small to have good traffic information. | vetinari wrote: | HERE is currently owned by a consortium of Mercedes-Benz, | BMW and Audi. So I guess that's where their traffic info | is from. | SanjayMehta wrote: | One of the best features of HERE maps is the ability to | download entire countries' maps and turn off data. | | This was a life saver when roaming when data charges were | really exorbitant. | tomschwiha wrote: | Google Maps Android also supports offline maps | downloading of selected regions. However the download is | only valid for a year. | ruph123 wrote: | Is panning and zooming in OSMAnd not a huge pain for anyone | else? The map rendering (of downloaded maps) is extremely | sluggish and absolutely useless for me to use. (Even worse | than the tile-based rendering of early Maps on iPhone.) | | Organic and MagicEarth work fine for me. I really wonder if | it is just my setup or if everyone else suffers from this. I | am on a Pixel 5 with CalyxOS using the OSMAnd+ from Fdroid | (but same with normal OSMAnd from Aurora) | bboygravity wrote: | I have the exact opposite experience with OSMAnd on | Android. | | The map rendering of OSMAnd is faster than Google Maps | (using a 3+ year old smart phone with a low-end Realtek | SoC). Like really way way faster/snappier. | | My setup is a Chinese brand Android 10 with default OS | (rooted)and OSMAnd+ from Fdroid. | | The only possible cause I could think of is that CalyxOS is | somehow missing proper video drivers for your Pixel? | ruph123 wrote: | Hmm interesting, thanks for letting me know. I always | wondered why people recommend OSMAnd when it performs so | poorly. Will look into this. | ce4 wrote: | It may be a bug of Android: Newer Android versions have | further locker down sd card access. The implementation is | apparently super slow for stuff like what Osmand uses. Dont | put the map data onto the sd card or use one of the | predefined locations | | https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/12046 | https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/13254 | | Edit: If that is not the culprit then check if OpenGL | rendering is activated. | | You can also deactivate unneeded features from being | rendered (buildings, areas, etc). And lastly there are | smaller road-only maps (no POI data and no adresses though) | ruph123 wrote: | Thanks for letting me know. I don't have a sd card, | activated the dev plugin and enabled opengl but did not | see any real improvement. I will open an issue with a | screen recording on their repo now that I know it is not | supposed to be this bad. | therealmarv wrote: | The problem is you loose a certain percentage of businesses and | also user recommendations (no real alternative there). There is | no real incentive for businesses to make yourself visible on | OSM (probably many don't even know it exists). | dclowd9901 wrote: | Or, you know, use the Google maps app (like the company is | always haranguing us to do) and turn on "only allow while | using" for geo location. | college_physics wrote: | osm and wikipedia are proof that an alternative, more | desirable, digital universe is not utopically distant but | begging to be born. imagine if the world would somehow muster | to dedicate something more than token support to such projects | / designs | | prediction: osm will eventually surpass wikipedia as the most | successful crowdsourced effort because the more objective and | simple nature of its data allows dramatic scaling. if even 1% | of the billions of the world's roaming mobile devices get into | the habbit of augmenting the osm database (e.g. using | streamlined UI's like streetcomplete or yet to be build apps) | the disruption will be on its way | NavinF wrote: | Would you bet money on that? Google Maps is pretty | entrenched. A competing 2.4 trillion dollar company that | preinstalled their app on the most popular phone in the US | couldn't dethrone Google Maps. | college_physics wrote: | my prediction was careful to pitch osm against wikipedia | (both of which I love) not against the well known elephant | in the room :-) | | but on your real point, yes its going to be a long slog... | ruph123 wrote: | Unfortunately this is really not an option for (some) areas in | the US. After having moved to a populous LA area from Germany I | was baffled at the lack of detail in the maps. Basic things | like building numbers are entirely missing. Even after adding | more and more details I would never fully rely on OSM here | sadly. And if it only works sometimes why even bother using it | in the first place? At least this was my progression. From | fully using OSM, I am back to Google. | | The only good in-between solution is MagicEarth which | supplements OSM maps with data from lord knows where. However | although they claim to be privacy cautious they are quite | opaque. | cornedor wrote: | Also, do not fully rely on Google Maps knowing house numbers. | Looks like in some areas (in UK for example) Google used some | sort of OCR to find house numbers. There are houses and Wales | with random house numbers that only have a house name; | Numbering ends a few houses into dead-end alley where the | Street View car didn't come; Or totally wrong numbers where | house number sings are hard to read. | oniony wrote: | House names, rather than numbers, are very common in rural | UK. | gumby wrote: | Australia went to mandatory house numbers in, I think, | the 60s but my grandmother refused and gave out only her | house name until she passed away in the 21st century. | aganumb wrote: | Searching for my address just straight up doesn't work. | | Named house rather than a number, and the postcode isn't | a particular street but covers a number of little tracks | up to various farms. | | I also don't have a road name. | | The address syntax is: | | Building name | | Town | | County | | Post code | | The combination of no road and no number means Google | absolutely fails. It just gives suggestions of businesses | nearby... Ish. | Eleison23 wrote: | Does your location have a Place ID? Google originated | Place IDs for exactly this type of use case, so that | people could find places like yours without an address. | edf13 wrote: | Not heard of MagicEarth before - looks interesting but what's | missing is a "Why/how is it free" statement. They don't cover | how they monetise this, what's their business model. | mcv wrote: | Interesting. In my experience, OSM's level of detail in | Amsterdam is much higher than Google's. Especially in bike | routes, an area that Google often sucks at. | timeon wrote: | OSM is usually better in Europe. Even some rural paths were | mapped as streets in Google maps. But in USA it is probably | other way around. | moffkalast wrote: | Makes more sense to switch to bing maps, since they have ever | so slightly better satelite imagery and there's no way in | hell anyone would use bing for anything else anyway. | db48x wrote: | A lot of the US road map was imported from TIGER (<https://en | .wikipedia.org/wiki/Topologically_Integrated_Geogr...>). This | is an electronic mapping system set up in the 90s by the US | Government to aid in conducting the census. The TIGER data | doesn't have any address information at all, just road | shapes. No information about the type of road, the number of | lanes, the quality of the surface, presence of sidewalks, | signals at intersections, anything. Just the paths the roads | follow, and those paths are often of extremely poor quality. | The resulting OSM maps are barely usable; sometimes they are | not even recognizable by locals. | | So OSM has decent geographical coverage of the US, but relies | very heavily on individual contributors to correct the | deficiencies and add useful information to the maps. The only | way it will be usable for you is if others have improved it. | The only way it will be usable for others is if you jump back | in and do the same. | mtmail wrote: | > TIGER data doesn't have any address information at all | | In the EDGE tables it does have ZIP codes and house number | ranges, split into left and right side of the road. ZIP | codes were imported into OpenStreetMap data. House number | ranges are imported into the OpenStreetMap search into a | separate database table, so searching works in a lot of | areas but it's far from complete, all the issues you | mentioned with roads that don't even exist etc | db48x wrote: | I stand corrected. Maybe the TIGER data or the import | process was improved at some point in the last decade? | avtolik wrote: | While I like OSM for some use cases, and have contributed, it | can not work as a replacement for google maps for every day | use. My biggest problem is the search - absolutely unusable. | kqr wrote: | Technical nit: OSM as such does not have "a search". | Geocoding (as it's known) is a separate component and if you | dislike the one used by the openstreetmap.org there are other | services that render OpenStreetMap data for you - perhaps | with a better search! | NGRhodes wrote: | Obviously YMMV. | | I live about 1 mile from suburbs in a town called Bingley in | Yorkshire, England. | | I can't trust Google maps locally (though its good for local | business searches), as the mapping quality is terrible. My | village and local town have roads missing, numerous public | rights of way missing (over both public and private land). | Major areas of trees missing. OSM is much, much better. | | See the difference: | | https://ibb.co/fk74k3s https://ibb.co/GTKMTzn | | I am noticing more and more how poor Google maps is for non- | drivers (such as myself recently having to stop driving), such | as not being able to do walking routes over local foot bridges, | OSM with OSRM or Grasshopper is fine: | | https://ibb.co/NtTf6kr https://ibb.co/sq60YQy | dotancohen wrote: | > OSM with OSRM or Grasshopper | | Is this usable on mobile? Can you tell a bit more? | NGRhodes wrote: | Sorry, I don't know. I used the OSM website for the purpose | of this comparison. I use the Magic Earth app on my phone, | which has proprietary route planning (using open street | maps). | verytrivial wrote: | Here's a question for someone who understands cross-site | cookies (which isn't me): Why does www.google.com/maps 's site | permissions show https://www.openstreetmap.org/ as one of the | sites 'that can use cross-site cookies and site data'? | cft wrote: | I found OsmAnd absolutely essential in my extensive off-road | travels in Central America and Spain, paid to support it via | Google Play, but i could not for the hell of it figure out how | to submit photos and places. It forced me to create a separate | account and then always gave me errors when i tried to submit | ce4 wrote: | The separate account is needed for openstreetmap | uploads/notes/corrections. You can add places on osm.org also | or retry with the osm account using Osmand. | cft wrote: | I have what i think is a separate account. Could you link a | GitHub where i can create an issue and upload error | screenshots? Even if it's not a bug but a feature, it | should still be useful, because this flow is very | confusing. | rhamzeh wrote: | https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues | ce4 wrote: | There are two ways to login | | Oauth and user/password, you can try both under | plugins/openstreetmap editing/settings/Login to | Openstreetmap | | The official Telegram support group is also good for | getting help: | | https://t.me/OsmAndMaps | vaakash wrote: | This article is not about one specific service and how an | alternative can solve the problem. | | It is an example of how companies are dying to permission to | track is. | keyle wrote: | It's a very strange move indeed. maps.google.com implies an | application lives there, far better than being on the root | domain. | | It also means that when you start typing maps.google, you'd get | all your history searchable related to maps, although arguably | that's useless. | | I can't think of a reason why this would be a good technical move | for Google (ignoring the don't do evil thingie), other than | simplifying... certificates? Less lines in the firewall config... | I'm stretching here, help me understand. | luckylion wrote: | Other things: slightly simpler external DNS surface, probably | tiny speed improvements because users only need to have the IP | of www.google.com, not one for maps, one for www, one for | whateverelse. | | More possibility for connection re-use, as you'd only need to | have a connection open for www.google.com, not one for each | service. | | And security wise: ISPs can now only see that you're accessing | _something_ at google, but not which service exactly. If they | also bring in accounts.google.com into the fold, that would | make it harder to see whether you have an account or not. | fnordpiglet wrote: | True. I'm sure being a beyondcorp company they can't figure | out how to add dns entries. Those google guys really should | learn more about the internet and it's technologies. | | I don't buy the simplicity argument for a second. The | infrastructure exists, has existed for many years, and is not | particularly exotic in the world. | | The only thing that matters to a surveillance and advertising | company is surveillance and advertising. You don't need to | overthink this one. | justusthane wrote: | That's a rather simplistic take; a company that makes money | by surveilling you as you use their products also must care | about the quality of their products. If their products | suck, fewer people will use them = fewer people to surveil | = less money! So not all changes are necessarily directly | in the service of surveillance. | | Also, I don't think your reply to the above comment was | entirely fair; they didn't say anything about adding DNS | records, and also mentioned several other potential | benefits of not using subdomains. | fnordpiglet wrote: | All changes are in the service of surveillance. If making | the honey pot sweeter works then they'll do it. If making | it more pervasive and intrusive while not offending | anyone away they will do it. They will do nothing that | hurts the mission to mine and sell advertisements, and | all actions will lead to that. | | I know you mentioned other things but they're all sort of | in the same bucket of "not that hard once done" and | "google can surely do that without blinking an eye". I | would posit the move away from a subdomain to a root | domain is _hard_ and _complex_ and benefits end users not | one bit. Perhaps the end state is easier on the margins, | but again, I doubt given it's been that way for so long | it's effectively any easier for engineers or operators at | google in any way what so ever. | | Well, other than those responsible for surveilling all | the things. | phillipseamore wrote: | As you mention there are plenty of performance reasons to run | everything under a single hostname. There's also one | especially vital for Maps, it loads a tonne of resources and | maps are used in various other services at Google. Now that | caches are being siloed down to the host level, having all | the resources accessible in a same-origin cache will save | bandwidth and increase performance for users. | csmpltn wrote: | > "It's a very strange move indeed. maps.google.com implies an | application lives there, far better than being on the root | domain." | | How does "maps.google.com" imply an application "lives there" | any more than "google.com/maps"? | | Technically speaking, "google.com/maps" is far superior to | "maps.google.com" (check out the rest of the comments in this | thread for examples: simpler DNS configuration, simpler | certificate management, CORS, cookies, etc). | ilyt wrote: | Technically speaking it goes around any security CORS and | friends provide | csmpltn wrote: | > "Technically speaking it goes around any security CORS | and friends provide" | | CORS wasn't designed to "offer any security" in this | specific scenario anyway. | | By using "google.com/maps" they can simplify their systems | (by not worrying caring about CORS). | fnordpiglet wrote: | Security is hard, money is easy. Simple choice! | ojr wrote: | google.com/maps is simpler to type on a mobile phone and more | consumer friendly, I've always used google.com/ pattern, way | easier to leverage autocomplete, type a g to autocomplete | google.com then if you are looking for flights type f and in | 2-3 clicks you are on google.com/flights | somat wrote: | Yeah, but flights.google.com or translate.google gets you | there even faster. | | dns segments are shown backwards for a reason. it was done so | that the most specific part shows up first when searching for | something. | | I have to admit as a data structure snob. I vaguely wish it | were the other way around, sigh, as much as I hate to admit | it java classes got it right. I also have to admit it does | not really matter that much. | bdcp wrote: | huh? You were always able to share sub-domain cookies with top- | level domain cookies no? | | Set-Cookie: name=value; domain=google.com | zuhsetaqi wrote: | Setting cookies doesn't allow using Browser APIs lie GEO- | Location | lloeki wrote: | What about other apis such as web notifications or webcam and | mic access? | | With separate domains we could allow notifications for one | (e.g calendar) and disallow for another (e.g mail) at the | browser level. | | Seems like it would now be a blanket allow for all of | google.com (with a toggle for each product setting, maybe?) | which sounds like a very user hostile move. | | I guess it depends if one considers Google products to be | separate apps or Google as a whole to be a "Web OS". | | (Also on the technical side there's not just google.com but | also google.<2 letter country TLD>, which is even worse in | terms of CORS, certs, or whatever. Would they get rid of | that?) | aembleton wrote: | Google Maps could have set your location in a cookie that is | shared with google.com. Then search would have your location | anyway when you next visit it. | eknkc wrote: | Can you load, let's say maps.google.com/somepage in a hidden | iframe and use postmessage to send location data if it | already has access? Or do browsers force top level navigation | for such permissions? | amenghra wrote: | There were probably covert ways to obtain the same | information but it's now easier for Google to grab the | information using regular APIs. | | It also means if app X and app Y on their own subdomains | were previously using location APIs without any tricks, you | are now effectively opting into both apps. | | Bottom line: technically it doesn't matter but it probably | makes a difference in practice. | eknkc wrote: | Yeah it makes a lot of sense to do it this way, however | it does not feel that nefarious when there were plausable | workarounds anyway. | amenghra wrote: | Browser could implement finer grain permissions (i.e. | only permit the API use for a given top level path | regexp) but I bet most users won't bother fine tuning | their grants. | kqr wrote: | Hey now, it used to be local.google.com! I sometimes use that | just to see if it still works. | fbn79 wrote: | I'm wondering how much time browsers will take to implement URL | match permission granting. | wruza wrote: | If that was the goal, google could simply &tbm=maps it further. | SCLeo wrote: | Nah, Google will never do it because url parameters have | terrible SEO... Um wait ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-24 23:00 UTC)