Issue 15: Google Maps needs a comprehensive, timely process for updating its Cycling layer

Summary: Cyclists and cycling groups typically spend years lobbying for new cycling infrastructure before it ever gets added. Yet, when it does finally get delivered it does not systematically get updated on Google Maps Cycling layer. Key sections of cycling routes can take years to be updated on Google Maps and often only in piecemeal fashion as individuals report corrections one at a time.

Google Maps appears to manage comprehensive and timely processes for updating road and transit changes. New train stations are added without delay. And there is a standardised process for synchronising transit schedules. Likewise, road changes affecting driving are rarely left out-of-date for long.

Transport equity demands that cycling and walking updates are also managed in a comprehensive, systematic and timely way. Google shouldn't rely solely on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of government agencies. There are alternate ways to ensure changes to key cycling routes are updated quickly and effectively.

Google Maps also needs an effective process for submitting, validating and fully correcting map errors - like removing Dedicated lanes that don't exist, accurately representing Bicycle-friendly roads, and fixing wrong Cycling directions. It currently has suspended its Map Maker editing in most countries, and most corrections submitted via "Send feedback" are not implemented at all. Of the few corrections that are implemented, many aren't fixed comprehensively.
Read More

Issue 14: Inaccurate and inconsistent changes to the Google Maps Cycling layer should be minimised

Summary: Google Maps Cycling layer is often edited in ways that make it less accurate, consistent and useful. A more effective process for reviewing, approving and tracking all edits is needed.

In particular, the deletion of existing cycling trails, lanes or bicycle-friendly roads should be properly checked by multiple Google Map Maker editors who have access to accurate, local knowledge. It is a travesty that critical bike arterial routes - which often take many years to be delivered - can suddenly disappear from Google Maps.

For example, the 6.4km Sunshine Rail Trail was delivered in October 2015 and soon after added to Google Maps but, as of August 2016, has been completely deleted. Google wouldn't let a minor road, let alone a highway, be incorrectly deleted from its road map. And, if it somehow did, it certainly wouldn't refuse to fix it for months. Yet, this is what often happens to critical routes in city's cycling networks as Google publishes updates of its Cycling layer.

Swanston St in the city centre is the critical, popular and safe north-south arterial for cyclists but has been removed completely from Google Maps Cycling layer
Read More

Issue 13: Google Maps Cycling Directions should allow cyclists to avoid Stairs, Unpaved Trails and Highways

Summary: Google Maps Driving Directions allows motorists to tick Route options boxes to avoid Highways, Tolls and Ferries. However, its Cycling Directions only allows cyclists to avoid Ferries. It is much more useful for cyclists to be able to choose to avoid Stairs/Unbikeable sections, Unpaved Trails and Highways.

Google Maps Cycling layer should also enable stairs and other unbikeable obstacles to be listed and represented with clear symbols. Google Maps Traffic layer already includes Driving-specific symbols for Closed Roads and Construction, so it is clear that such symbols can be integrated. But, currently, only motorists are being given this value-add information about routes.
Read More

Issue 11: Google Maps Cycling Directions should enable avoiding high speed roads

Summary: Google Maps Cycling Directions will often use high speed roads in its recommended routes if there are no obviously safer, direct-enough alternatives. This is particularly the case when those high speed roads are marked as having Dedicated lanes (even though this is typically just paint).

In reality, when motor vehicles are travelling above 60km/hr and can pass unprotected cyclists less than 3m away, these are always uncomfortable (and often seriously unsafe) cycling conditions that very few cyclists would choose to ride in. Instead, they'll take longer, indirect routes or even ride on the sidewalk if necessary. Problematically, in countries like Australia, there can be bike lanes or shoulders targeted at cycling on roads with speed limits up to 80-100km/hr. When Google Maps displays these as undifferentiated bike routes this can cause serious safety issues.

Based on my experience, it's not even clear that Google Maps Cycling Directions makes any significant distinction between a road with a Dedicated bike lane and a speed limit of 40km/hr and one with a Dedicated bike lane and a speed limit of 90km/hr. If this is the case, it's an appalling oversight which is easy to correct systematically. It should be obvious that the greater the speed limit gets over 50km/hr, the more sharply roads should be deprioritised as cycling routes.
Read More

Issue 10: Google Maps need to add bikeable links so that Cycling Directions follow recommended routes

Summary: Google Maps Cycling Directions are sometimes inaccurate, sub-optimal or impossible to manually adjust because critical bikeable connecting links - such as shared walking/cycling paths - do not exist or are not marked as bikeable in its Cycling layer.

The result is that its Cycling Directions do not show the precise route link (typically off-road) recommended or popular with cyclists and default instead to roads that follow a long way round or are less safe or convenient.

In some cases, the Cycling layer does include the bikeable link, but it is drawn on-road when it is typically off-road. This often looks like the cyclist will need to travel the wrong way down a road.
Read More

Issue 8: Direction of travel differences in bike lanes and bike-friendliness need to be indicated on Google Maps

Summary: Because on-road cycling facilities like bike lanes have been retrofitted to streets only where feasible and not inconveniencing motorists too much, they are not always consistent in both directions. In some sections, there might be space for a Dedicated bike lane in one direction but not in the other. And the direction without a bike lane may be a Bicycle-friendly road or it may be unsafe and unsuitable as a cycling route.

While Google Map Maker enables Dedicated lanes and Bicycle-friendly roads to be marked up in either direction or both directions, this information is not mandatory and can be left blank. In addition, its Cycling layer green lines do not differentiate between direction of travel unless the road is bisected by a median of some sort. This results in a single green line being painted down the middle of the road but only one direction may have Dedicated lanes or be Bicycle-friendly.
Read More

Issue 7: Gaps in bike lanes should be displayed not concealed on Google Maps

Summary: While it aids the coherence of cycling routes and Google's Cycling Directions for bike lanes to be drawn continuously on Google Maps, in cities like Melbourne, gaps are very common. It is excuseable if some very short sections are not precise, and gaps at intersections are often to be expected. But, currently, there are many substantial gaps in bike lanes that have been incorrectly presented as complete on Google Maps, and which have a considerable impact on cyclist safety and comfort.

Accurately representing these substantive gaps would assist cyclists to make more optimal decisions when using Google Maps to choose a cycling route. Also, concealing the gaps helps the responsible government agency (in Victoria: VicRoads or the relevant local government) to get away with not remediating them. Indeed, it seems the responsible government agency is often the supplier of the incorrect data.
Read More

Issue 6: Off-road paths that fill gaps in on-road bike lanes need to be added effectively to Google Maps

Summary: Google Maps is generally good for finding on-road bike routes (e.g. with bike lanes) and off-road bike routes (e.g. Trails running along waterways or in green space). However, it often fails to accurately and effectively represent off-road bike infrastructure that fills gaps in on-road routes.

Often these on-road routes are marked up as if useable bike lanes or safe cycling space exists on-road along the whole route. In reality, many bike routes have had gaps filled in with off-road paths - including bidirectional shared paths that sometimes only exist on one side of the street. These off-road sections are then part of the recommended cycling route but this often isn't obvious to cyclists from signs/stencils or Google Maps. Even worse, Google Maps often wrongly indicates in these sections that the on-road cycling infrastructure exists (e.g. that Dedicated bike lanes continue).
Read More

Issue 5: Safer intersection and connecting links should be prioritised in Google Maps Cycling layer

Summary: Cyclists often use bidirectional offroad paths, pedestrian crossings and other links inaccessible to motor traffic to find safer and more convenient ways to navigate intersections and less safe road conditions - such as multilane roundabouts. Unfortunately, Google Maps Cycling layer has yet to incorporate or prioritise many of these routes if they aren't accessible to motor traffic.

Thus, while experienced cyclists eventually discover these safer and more convenient links, cyclists relying on Google Maps are often directed to use the less safe or more inconvenient road routes available to traffic.

If all types of cycling infrastructure are added to the Cycling layer correctly, many of these preferred routes will be available to see on Google Maps as well as used in Cycling Directions. Some other informal cycling links should also be added so that Google's directions for the most popular and significant cycling routes match the actual paths taken by most cyclists.

Street View - St Georges Rd and Miller St
Read More

Issue 4: Off-road bike paths should be marked as trails not displayed as on-road routes

Summary: Most off-road bike paths that run alongside roads are currently marked up as on-road cycling infrastructure - either incorrectly as Dedicated lanes or confusingly as Trails running within the roadway. This is primarily because Google currently instructs Map Maker editors to mark up parallel trails as on-road features. It's also quicker to do this than manually mark the precise GPS route.

The issue is that Google Maps Cycling layer can then only display these routes (which are mostly much safer alternatives) on the roadway itself. Cyclists unfamiliar with the off-road path and precisely where to access it will often end up riding along the road expecting a safe cycling lane and finding only an unsafe road. And Google's Cycling Directions do not ever say exit the road here and join the trail on your left, they misleadingly indicate continuance along the roadway.

The solution is to invest the time to manually mark up all off-road bike paths consistently as Trails with the precise GPS route then being able to be displayed on Google Maps Cycling layer. Importantly, the access points (often only periodic or unobvious) should be clearly marked up too as many parallel trails are only accessible at specific points - once you ride past them you can't just hop on later from any point.
Read More
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)