From: mariond@facts.com   
      
   AJL wrote:   
   > My THEORY was that Google might be BEST to use since MORE people were   
   > likely using it and thus MORE PEOPLE were likely ENTERING the CURRENT   
   > road conditions into Google.   
      
   All your points are perfectly valid.   
      
   However, in my Silicon Valley experiences, Google Maps sucks in terms of   
   explaining WHY the traffic is suddenly backed up somewhere. It just does.   
      
   Why?   
   I don't know why.   
   Maybe it's just me?   
      
   I don't know if Google Maps sucks compared to the other methods for others.   
      
   But I don't disagree that almost all of the 10 million people out here are   
   using Google Maps, but I didn't even KNOW you can update Google Maps that   
   easily (e.g., speed trap, deer in the road, kids throwing rocks, whatever).   
      
   Of course, I'm aware that "Waze" allows that kind of input easily, and   
   Google Maps can suck out of Waze whatever it wants, so that does exist.   
      
   I just looked up if you can add transient traffic hazards to both, and the   
   answer is "yes, of course you can". It's different, but it can be done.   
      
   Google Maps allows hazard reporting during active navigation while Waze is   
   built around real-time user reports, making it ideal for transient hazards   
   like debris, potholes, stalled cars or kids hurling tires off a bridge.   
      
   Looking it up, you need to be logged in to report those hazards, which is   
   normal for Waze, but how many people use Google Maps logged in?   
      
   I don't. (I can't.) (I won't.)   
   Google Maps *creates* an account on your device if you log into it.   
      
   > Road construction would likely be on all   
   > the competing maps since it's there for days/weeks/months.   
      
   Heh heh heh... out here, in the Silicon Valley, Caltrans has a habit of   
   closing a lane all the time, temporarily, to clean something up.   
      
   Sometimes it's scheduled. Sometimes not.   
   But most of the time it's scheduled, so your point is taken as valid.   
      
   > But a Highway   
   > Patrol speed trap would be there for just a short time.   
      
   Yup. I've had Google Maps warn me of them.   
   Someone is reporting them. Maybe the CHP?   
      
   > I was always on   
   > my best behavior when one of those civilian entered warnings was ahead   
   > and breathed a sigh of relief when I passed the trap unscathed. Thanks   
   > fellow drivers and Google.   
      
   Agree. I used to use a radar detector back east, where there's a speed trap   
   at every intersection, but they're not so much out here in California.   
      
   I'm not sure what the status is of the radar/lidar/helicopter detectors.   
   Are they still being used by folks?   
      
   > Another time an accident closed the freeway   
   > ahead and because of the warning I was able to detour through a nearby   
   > town and could see all the stopped freeway traffic as I cruised by on a   
   > parallel street.   
      
   Yeah. Long ago we had a discussion of whether cell phones caused accidents,   
   where one of the boons is re-routing around situations like that.   
      
   It's wonderful.   
   A billion people's lives are saved by avoiding such situations.   
      
   > Again my theory only works if considerably MORE folks use Google than   
   > the competition. It's just a chance thing: more eyeballs, more warnings.   
   > (assuming of course that the competition has the civilian warning   
   > capability)...   
      
   I don't doubt almost everyone uses Google Maps on the road.   
   But I could be wrong. SO I looked it up.   
       
       
      
    70% Google Maps   
    27% Waze   
    20% to 25% Apple Maps (and growing)   
    5%  HERE WeGo, MapQuest, and niche apps   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)