Talk:Google Maps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal: Google Maps Navigation

Proposing merging of Google Maps Navigation into Google Maps. Article refers to previous application that was later integrated into the Google Maps app. Doublah (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Increasing the size of this already-big article is not going to be an improvement. The fact that navigation was once a separate application is likely of tangential interest to most readers so appropriate to handle in a separate article. I presume there is no
    WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - agree with above statement Phatblackmama (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Vision

What about the fact that Google copied Terra Vision omstead of dveloping their own software? 2001:16B8:1207:2E00:E545:36B8:70BE:B1DB (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Terravision (computer program). – The Grid (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea now fully accessible in Google Maps

Can anyone update the page? It seems South Korea has now allowed Google Maps to include their country. Whereas in North Korea, they permanently removed all reviews and no longer allowed users to write reviews from places of interest. 2604:B000:B137:FF36:1969:68ED:962D:BE4C (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Kim family incident in Criticism and controversies

I would like to see the controversy around Google Maps related to the 2006

Grants Pass to Gold Beach, Oregon); this resulted in Google going on record that their directions "are intended for planning purposes only", MapQuest & Yahoo gloating that they suggest better routes, and several printed map providers (local authorities, AAA, etc.) boasting of their options being safer. Even though the speculation was eventually debunked (the surviving wife confirmed they followed an official printed map but missed important warnings & annotations), it had undermined public trust in online mapping & routing services in general. I took a stab at adding it to the Misdirection incidents subsection (diff), but it was unceremoniously removed--lesson learned, should have asked here first. I can rewrite it so it focuses less on the incident and more on the controversy itself (if that makes sense); I don't think a new subsection (e.g., Debunked misdirections or Erroneous speculations) is warranted, but can be persuaded otherwise. For additional arguments both ways see Meters's talk page. MStruzak (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@MStruzak: if it has been debunked, then I do not think it belongs on this page. Yes, people seem to have speculated about it being related to Google Maps, but if it has been confirmed that they were using paper maps, then it is not relevant to this article. I am not familiar with the case, but the James Kim article makes no mention of Google Maps. Melonkelon (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Melonkelon: thanks for weighing in. I'm not quite sold on the argument that just because something was debunked it should not be mentioned; by extending that logic debunked claims mentioned in articles about Bigfoot or Bermuda Triangle would have no merit, maybe even the very existence of these articles would need to be questioned. The controversy was fairly intense at the time of the events, partly because the fatal route was indeed being suggested by Google Maps, whether they actually relied on it or not. Serious outlets wrote about it at the time, incl. SFGate (back then the digital arm of San Francisco Chronicle), SMH & WIRED, and it led to sensational petitions like this one. Because of the noise alone that was generated around Google Maps at the time, I still feel like something should be mentioned about it somewhere in this article. It was a controversy for sure and evolved around misdirection; if it muddles the section too much, would it be more palatable to create subsections, e.g., "Debunked" for this and "Confirmed" for the other two? Or to rewrite it so that it focuses on Google Maps suggesting back then a route proven deadly (which is what the press at the time seems to have done) rather than whether the Kims actually used Google Maps or not? MStruzak (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of 3D cities?

There are mentions of satellite views and the new Immersive View, but there doesn't seem to be anything about the massive 3D city views that were created since 2012 using airplanes, e.g. the highly detailed 3D view of London's buildings and foliage. This Reuters article from 2012 seems to be all I could find. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 11:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Be bold and add it with the Reuters source, with additional sources if you can them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Embedding with My Maps

In the My Maps section, it may be worth mentioning that My Maps can be used for embedding maps featuring specific pins and selected map styles on business sites and blogs. Google guide , MakeUseOf Zetagaming (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Maps&oldid=1220407155"