Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: App]le Maps Date: 26 Oct 2015 22:20:04 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <562897f3$0$27876$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> <221020151939385313%star@sky.net> X-Trace: individual.net +PkTr0tQEd1SA4ukV4ombQK1Lrf9DYT+0el0DwwrIdxFZOjQ0V Cancel-Lock: sha1:+wdmf+MPM7mCJgBdynz8AbxM/DI= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:84259 On 2015-10-26, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-10-26 17:59, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2015-10-26, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-10-25 18:55, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-25, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-25 12:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Oh so because it works great here, my needs are meager... Right. >>>>> >>>>> Well obviously you're satisfied with the meagre presentation of traffic; >>>> >>>> Thankfully, that need is already fulfilled by my in-dash navigation >>>> system, which doesn't require me using my phone. : ) >>> >>> Actually talking about the Mac OS X Maps app. When planning a trip into >>> or around the city, the Google traffic data is richer and far more >>> informative. >> >> I've got them side by side. At a glance, it seems the main difference is >> Apple Maps doesn't display green lines when traffic is fast. Google Maps >> does, which gives the appearance of more lines, but really isn't all >> that more useful, IMO. "Less is better" is right in this regard, IMO. >> What else is richer and more informative? > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/3t81es9513v42uf/Screen%20Shot%202015-10-26%20at%2018.03.17.jpg > (Side by side - same instant in time) > > Apple Maps (OS X) would give me the false impression that "surface" > streets would be a better bet than staying on the main arteries. I did notice that some smaller streets don't appear to be covered by Apple Maps. I suppose if that really mattered to me I would use Google instead. My car's navigation system does a satisfactory job of it though and is available when I need it - on the road. It automatically routs me away from congestion, which has saved me tons of time and money. > As to planning, with GM I can look at (if I choose) what the typical > load is at (say tomorrow morning) and plan accordingly. That's a feature I've used before, and it is nice. >>>>> the meagre (inexistent) ability to edit a route by simply dragging part >>>>> of the route to another road and the meagre starting of route planning. >>>> >>>> That's not something I have done more than a few times. If I want to get >>>> directions between two places, I typically specify them by name/address. >>>> And if I want to select an arbitrary place, it's not hard to specify a >>>> location nearby rather than dropping a pin. It's just not a show stopper >>>> for me. I understand it is for you, and that's fine. I just disagree >>>> with your broad statement claiming Apple Maps is useless when that's not >>>> the case for others. >>> >>> I don't believe I claimed it was useless. Just less usable. >> >> You said the only useful feature of Apple Maps was iOS integration. I > > For me that is a potentially useful feature as my phone would be loaded > with the route as I go. There are lots of other useful features too. >> disagree with your opinion, which is the point: you don't speak for >> everyone. > > No I don't. But I can speak to what GM does v. AM. And GM does more. > Always has. And I'm not disputing that. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR