February 08, 2005

• No worky in Opera. god damn my buggy firefox
• Quick tip I learned in Firefox: Google Maps will not work unless you use Tools > Options > Web Features > Javascript > Advanced > Change Images (ON). Typically we deselect all that stuff to keep those pesky ad-infested sites from monkeying around with our windows. Of course Javascript must be turned on as well.
• Oh, and click and drag to move the map around, too.
• Damn. Found my house.
• Covers my part of Canada exteremely well, with an up-to-date database that includes roads that are only a year old. I love the click & drag interface, too. Mapquest is dead.
• I agree. Here's another reason Mapquest is dead. Link for Austin in Google maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=30.274536%2C-97.740182&spn=0.015961%2C0.029109 Link for Austin in Mapquest (same map): http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=8&mapdata=KpoRn2E8mwggJWtzMy6MqaQchxuro7EvFL%2bLk6zRxC40SWhuChiv %2bUynFRWCegcZzB7joJkFUENq0pZrtb3oYZt7N3QX%2fgoDdPVfRsc5jpOR84PZagOfun0oQT8r GwA%2br3enNEemEPBlZpK7hP3Xcy9NaJ3uPr4yY0F39VqIhOI58%2flQ1NIj%2bsBghkwLvAmRkA DAwTsqkvsGx3pESwVyDRslwE7wQKFQCYE3zZJzNYSVk4bQ9p%2bZpRNlJBzcWQhPUlUDdCExn RO4M7k%2bPThFuNx39K2uI2bizK%2bL3PRjxFLGpIpitSJPBptfzkXp1YLkgJEd%2bmThchoRncHuq9 wNWt0jg8qW94w0UvPtg4B3DLSZjsr2T5s8s%2f%2fgTaxZwuZIXu1%2fuI0DoEyAL0x9D0xMb MeXvNL75PsxY8xMqytHmtOXp3DgO5BuuQ%3d%3d Mapquest can shove their session IDs up their ass.
• Crap, I hope I didn't screw up the margins on this thread.
• [this is good]
• thanks for posting the comparison, rolypolyman. I may be able to use this for work.
• Thanks rolypolyman! I was wondering why it wasn't working for me with FF.
• Seemed to work well enough in Safari, although I haven't compared it in other browsers yet to see what's missing.
• Damn, now I really wish I had gotten that job with Navtech! (same database as Mapquest btw). This will tie in nicely with the satellite-imaging service that Google acquired last year.
• It doesn't work at all for me in Safari; just get a page telling me which browsers are supported and which aren't. I'm looking forward to playing with it on Firefox at home tonight.
• Under the list of supported browsers is a link to try it anyway: see if this works.
• It only sort-of works for me in Mozilla 1.7.5. When the map reloads or scrolls, there are usually a few blocks that do not load (staying gray) or do not get updated (leaving a now out-of-place map block behind). It seems to be slower but more reliable in IE6 (yuck). Has anyone else seen this? Other than that, though, it's remarkably fast and usable for being a web application. The interface seems to be swiped straight from Microsoft's "Streets And Trips" Works component, which would have been an amazing program if it hadn't generated instructions to drive north on a southbound freeway, etc.
• Yeah, I have that same problem, Lagged, with occasional blank blocks. I wonder if it has to do with those Firefox acceleration tips that were posted here a few months ago. Did you do any of them perchance?
• rolypolyman, muchos gracias. I'm doing an essay in a couple of months on google and the possiblity of it becoming the information source on the Web in the future (i.e. making all other sources, even paid services such as Web of Science or Lexis/Nexis, redundant). The Mapquest example is an excellent one to put in my essay. *bookmarks thread*.
• Thanks, tracicle, it was good to at least see it. :) And Alnedra, dunno if you've seen this: Epic - it's extremely silly but it sort of covers what you're talking about with google. Although this takes it to the Skynet conclusion...
• Mapquest isn't dead. (re-lurks)
• Blaise, you're alive!
• I was looking for where I am now and I chose not to click the last close-up button because I could feel pressure mounting on my head. On the plus side, I was able to locate Nostril.
• rolypolyman: I have that same problem, Lagged, with occasional blank blocks. I wonder if it has to do with those Firefox acceleration tips that were posted here a few months ago. Did you do any of them perchance? Hadn't thought of that - I sure do use them. I just now tried Google Maps with pipelining and keep-alive turned off, and it does indeed work better - no more blank blocks. And it's at most only a tad slower (on broadband, anyhow). I wish there was a hotkey to switch pipelining on and off.
• And just to beat this ailing horse a bit more, after trying a few different settings, I seem to get the best results with HTTP 1.1 enabled, HTTP keep-alive enabled, and HTTP pipelining disabled. All in Moz 1.7.5, as before. Google maps is amazingly fast and smooth with these settings.
• Works on my 'tweaked' firefox just fine. When are they going to have a feature where you can go from one place to another via someplace else? I don't want two sets of directions, I want to drive to seattle through montana instead of utah. funny how the rest of the world just doesn't exist
• My wishlist: A scale: I can't tell how far it is between things: a map scale is needed. If I'm going to be picky, it would be to be able to pick two points and have it tell me the distance between them. I know it possible due to the fact that it is already working in long/lat. User definable way points: This has been touched upon above quite a bit. It would be a 'killer' feature. It would just be a product of going 'between' multiple points. It is doable. Topographic features. Tougher. They probably just need the data. Weather overlays. Link to the weather from a point on the map (once again, easy to do with weather.gov, as both sites work in long/lat). Link to terraserver. Once again, easy to do because of long/lat. I guess some of this could be hacked by the average Joe as you could dig into the javascript and do it. Anyway, I am WAY impressed, as it everyone else I know who has seen this. I don't think it will be too long before we see some major hacking taking place.
• Did I miss "zoom-in/zoom-out"? Maybe they just haven't implemented it yet?
• Never mind!
• Wish list: please cover the other 90%+ of the globe. Thank you!
• I don't know about their routes. They had me going through Chicago on a trip from Ohio to Texas. I *hate* going through Chicago unless I just have to (or that's my endpoint. I love Chicago as a city, hate it as a drive-through point).
• Yeah, meredithea, I put it to the Austin-to-Denver test and it does the ridiculous jaunt up to central Kansas before doglegging west. It's incredibly stupid and congested compared to a more direct route through Amarillo. These sites have to start toning down their Interstate-centric directions. On another note, I like their implementation of "fat streets" (European style). I've been seeing more of this in U.S. maps. It does make them more legible. Tim
• would also be nice to zoom in with the same smoothness as you can pan.
• rolypolyman: Plus, when you go through Amarillo, you get to sing "Amarillo by Morning" and annoy all of your driving companions :)
• heh, when I drove Austin-to-Denver we went through Amarillo on the way and through Kansas on the way back. The Kansas route was more annoying, but it was redeemed by the Chalk Pyramids.