There are significantly more people using the other modes, especially in active navigation. For example, it’s well known that Google detects traffic through the movement of active users (there was the wagon of phones traffic jam experiment). Imagine trying to do something similar with the amount of cyclists actively using Google with the necessary privacy settings enabled on any given route. It would be noisy but possible, but then on top of that Google is extremely strict with privacy requirements (the exact opposite of what everyone on HN assumes). And once you add all of Google’s voluntary restrictions like anonymity of inferred data and such, it’s nearly impossible to gather any signal, even in major cities.
Edit: By the way, the massive difference in potential users compared to all other modes is also why it’s so hard to prioritise work on cycling inside Google.
This sounds a bit American to me honestly - I would think that in Europe (and especially in Amsterdam) there would be enough cyclists to make the data usable. OTOH, they may not have the necessary privacy settings enabled (I think that's a minority among car users too). Of course it's also a vicious circle: if Google Maps is bad for cyclists, few cyclists will be using it, so you won't get the data you need to make it better. Additionally, I think the proportion of cyclists using any kind of navigation solution is lower than with car drivers...
How many cyclists use Google Maps to navigate? I guess (with no true facts) most cyclists know their primary routes and when going somewhere new have a rough idea and just check for the last part.
Whereas car drivers often use navigation all the time to see traffic and alternatives, which are non-issues for cyclists.
Thus even with many cyclists the information they collect is less.
Add that there’s no Android or Google Auto for bikes, you usually don’t charge while biking, etc. The people who do need to look up their cycling route typically do it beforehand, so in the end even in cycling-heavy regions there are very few using active navigation.
Delivery workers will in regions where that’s common, but they likely use company-provided or other local solutions.
Biking through Keskuspuisto central park, even when born and raised and lived in Helsinki for my whole life, one still needs to consult the satellite map a lot. It's a maze. The signs are roughly indicative at best. So many places look exactly the same you forget the exact crossings during the winter. You often can't see far because it's a forest.
The Cowboy bike company have started using Google Maps for navigation in their app, which is a bummer: Before the change, the navigation would reliably take direct me to use roads that a bike friendly. Now it does just the opposite: it wants me to take big roads that are only friendly to cars.
Google Maps was a nightmare at the top 100 US News university I went to. It'd constantly be unaware of bike routes and try to take me an absurdly wrong way around. Even as I was taking the bikable shortcut paths it would just keep rerouting telling me to turn around 180° even when I was more than halfway near the other road. You'd think there's be sufficient data on a major university campus...
hit is not how I use navigation apps when cycling.
When I don't know the way, I start my navigation app (not gmaps) when I drive off, because
- I don't want to stop midway to check where I need to go, when I can do that when I get on the bike
- I don't know where exactly to stop to check where to go
- If I don't know where exactly I want to go, going roughly in the right direction probably means that I cycle longer than I need to
Also mistakes driving a car are more costly. If you miss a turn on a bike, you can stop, walk your bike back, and take it. In a car, if the street is busy, you can’t do that, and who knows where you end up if you take the next exit etc.
The widespread assumption that Google collects all data all the time and uses it for everything is ridiculous.
There’s a labyrinth of explicit user agreements, all of which are strictly enforced, and then there are further layers of voluntary restrictions on top of that.
Yes, Google might collect location data even when you’re not using Maps (there are a lot of passionate, dedicated Timeline users), but you have to have that enabled, and even then the data can only be used in certain ways.
I had to go to great lengths to disable location history, and Google penalizes me for it by disabling search history in Maps as a result. I'm sure 99% of people don't go to great lengths to disable location history and so yes your entire history of GPS locations is basically saved to a Google database as far as I remember. (Note I'm obviously a user recalling details from years ago and not a Google employee/developer. My perception that Google collects all our GPS details forever by default is based on reality, whether or not that means you as an employee would actually be able to do anything with that data.)
> The widespread assumption that Google collects all data all the time and uses it for everything is ridiculous.
Maybe they fail to use it competently but it definitely collects a lot of data and attempting to stop it results in punitive reactions and disabling of features not needing it - and repeated badgering to permit Google to collect data again.
Google also collects data that I was initially unaware that it is collecting.
"Yes, Google might collect location data even when you’re not using Maps (there are a lot of passionate, dedicated Timeline users), but you have to have that enabled"
Of course that opt-in requirement was only the result of a hard-fought class action settlement.
Take this with a grain of salt as my recollection of the litigation is somewhat hazy. But I believe Google argued, even when a user opted out of location tracking, Google could still keep the data for its own uses. Ie opting out of location tracking simply meant the user didn't have access to their location history, it didn't show up on the phone (couldn't be searched by suspicious spouses) etc.
I believe they also collect location data when you're not using Google Maps for the purpose of updating their database of wifi locations (that they then use for location tracking). There is an agreement for this too, but the Android phones I've had regularly spam you until you agree to it.
You mean: until you accidentally click to agree because it popped up just when you wanted to click something below it. And then of course the only way to disable it again is hidden somewhere several levels deep, and comes with warnings that it will break your phone.
Well, they collect quite some information, but to figure out which exact routs are taken etc need a persistent collection which is relatively expensive. The "passive" cell based location tracking doesn't work for that.
In a car you can charge your phone and battery usage for GPS isn't as much of a problem.
The ex-Googler is most likely talking about the product as a whole, across the globe. It would be hard to justify features dedicated to a small group of users overall (with different goals/expectations), especially while keeping privacy (and data sharing).
That being said, Google maps works great for cyclists in the US ...
Yes, it’s also maddening for most Googlers who are passionate about the work they want to do that would affect just tens of millions (or less).
But at least it leaves room for other companies in some situations. What’s really sad is when there’s something that could only be done by Apple or Google, but it’s too small for either of them to actually do it.
Problem is those companies are like Nest, who made good products with love and then sold themselves to Google who then turned most Nest products into bargain-basement offerings with half the features. So the only real fix is FOSS, since everything else can be bought and killed. (FOSS can be too, but it's harder.)
I don't think it's necessary to jump right to data collection, the routing algorithms and incomplete maps are the issue. Of course, you'd need additional data about bike lanes, etc (which could come from crowdsourced data? Maybe that's what you are alluding to?).
As it is, offline routers such as Brouter and OSMAnd do a much better job, and it's pretty easy to convince other cyclists to use them.
Traffic jams are almost never an issue when biking - heavy car or bike traffic can slow you down, but by that point you have at least the same density as car traffic jams for data collection...
Is it that there are more cars? Because I live in Amsterdam, and there's definitely more bikes than cars here, yet bicycle support still sucks. Although it's possible few cyclists use Google Maps because a) it's bad, b) they don't need to, and c) you need a special clip to use your smartphone live on your bike (though that's also true for cars).
Most modern cars have a center console with Android Auto, so you just plug in your phone to USB and it takes over navigation, communication and entertainment.
What exactly makes the challenge of cycle so much harder than walking? Also is there really 0 ways you could use pedestrian mode data for biking directions? Even if marginally or to confirm hypotheses mostly based on cycling data
Lastly, is there anything stopping you from contributing potential innovations to open source alternatives?
In most densely populated areas near where I live in southern New England, bikes are vehicles that, in most cases, must operate on the roadway. I'd get a ticket for riding a bike across a pedestrian bridge or down an urban sidewalk.
Edit: By the way, the massive difference in potential users compared to all other modes is also why it’s so hard to prioritise work on cycling inside Google.