> Over the course of a year, Google quietly turned its map inside-out – transforming it from a road map into a place map.
I've long been amazed how we somehow transitioned during the early 20th century from a mental model of roads and paths running through locations to places (house lots, etc) being the spaces between the roads. It's a natural thing to happen, but one of those invisible flips that happens on a timescale longer than a human lifetime.
But this anticipates the opposite: if you can stop worrying about how to get somewhere (because you don't have to drive or plan much -- self-driving or Lyft-style services can take care of the route planning) you can focus on the destination.
We see this phenomenon in subway maps which are famously schematic and not geographical.
(BTW the transformation is visible in literature, which is how I noticed it. The sense of geography in, say, Jane Austin is completely alien to today).
> BTW the transformation is visible in literature, which is how I noticed it. The sense of geography in, say, Jane Austin is completely alien to today
Now I'm curious, don't remember such a difference, but then it's been a long time since I read Jane Austen. Don't suppose you could put your finger on exactly how she handles geography that a writer like Stephen King or China Mieville doesn't?
At a guess, previous generations would talk in terms of distance-to-destination, whereas we talk in terms of time-to-destination. They would think of a highway and a neighborhood as having the same "speed limit" (foot or horse-and-cart). We, with cars, think of highways as having a much lower time cost (or higher time efficiency) than neighborhood roads.
> At a guess, previous generations would talk in terms of distance-to-destination, whereas we talk in terms of time-to-destination
I guess this must be a 20th-century phenomenon limited to industrialized nations. My grandparents' generation, who lived in the Carpathian Mountains and relied on cows and wooden-made carts for their method of transportation (when not going on foot), definitely only used time-to-destination. I've never ever heard my grandma' say anything about kilometers, meters, or the like.
In developing countries this shift has already happened ('distance' to 'time') due to things like traffic jams, inconsistent infrastructure (some routes are longer but faster due to lesser traffic signals or better maintained etc.)
Maybe it would not be wrong to assert that this shift is more in force in developing countries than other places. This could be due to unpredictableness. The routes that are optimal now - takes less time - can change in matter of minutes/hours (due to procession/rallies, rains, accidents, school & office timings, power failure - leading to stoppage of traffic signals, etc.)
Google maps always give multiple routes to a destination and they differ in terms of time to destination (distance to destination is seen as secondary information on map interface).
> In developing countries this shift has already happened ('distance' to 'time') due to things like traffic jams, inconsistent infrastructure (some routes are longer but faster due to lesser traffic signals or better maintained etc.)
Then I guess Germany has not yet developed. But when talking about places people always specify the distance. Berlin is 584 km away from Munich, not 5 hours and 15 minutes. Talking about time to destination is something I have exclusively seen Americans do. Maybe that's because in the US distance and time are basically the same, since everybody takes the car and drives at the speed limit. But in Germany there is no general speed limit, and you might also decide to take the train or airplane to Berlin (and may people do) at which point talking about time would be confusing at best.
Before trains were introduced in Germany, distance was often given in time it takes to walk (Wegstunde, lit. "way hour"). Early trains even advertised how many hours you can cover in mere minutes. People then probably realised how silly that sounds when more and more train lines where built and dropped that in favour of distance.
I disagree. Places that I have visited serve as excellent landmarks. I wouldn't want them to be the only thing on the map but having them dusted around makes it very easy for me to know where new places are.
Google makes money from place entries (booking ads, place ads) but not from geographic place names, this alone explains the move. Think of the places selected as ads at the top of your search results.
I was thinking or maybe dreaming about this the other day. There's a subtle shift through tech that blurs the original goal. You wanted to enjoy some place a little easier, so roads make sense. Then it grows and grows and now the beautiful places are surrounded by roads and annoyed crowds and there's nothing to enjoy.
> Over the course of a year, Google quietly turned its map inside-out – transforming it from a road map into a place map.
I've long been amazed how we somehow transitioned during the early 20th century from a mental model of roads and paths running through locations to places (house lots, etc) being the spaces between the roads. It's a natural thing to happen, but one of those invisible flips that happens on a timescale longer than a human lifetime.
But this anticipates the opposite: if you can stop worrying about how to get somewhere (because you don't have to drive or plan much -- self-driving or Lyft-style services can take care of the route planning) you can focus on the destination.
We see this phenomenon in subway maps which are famously schematic and not geographical.
(BTW the transformation is visible in literature, which is how I noticed it. The sense of geography in, say, Jane Austin is completely alien to today).