London Roads - Page 26

Wharn · #**501** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 4:20 AM**

Just used Google Maps yesterday to plot a trip from Collingwood to London, and it's not just the London numbering that's all screwed up. It still shows parts of old provincial highways that haven't existed in over a decade. For example, Highway 9 is still shown as being continuous from Kincardine to Newmarket.

haljackey · #**502** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 6:39 AM**

Made this for a school project, but may as well share it here:

• Video Link

It's a video render of what Annadale Drive (near Wonderland Road and the Aquatic Centre) could look like if some upgrades were made to the road and the surrounding area.

The end result is intended to reduce car use and improve connectivity and efficiency for all modes of transportation (in this case car/bike/bus/pedestrian).

manny_santos · #**503** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wharn

Just used Google Maps yesterday to plot a trip from Collingwood to London, and it's not just the London numbering that's all screwed up. It still shows parts of old provincial highways that haven't existed in over a decade. For example, Highway 9 is still shown as being continuous from Kincardine to Newmarket.

With Mapmaker, you can have all the arguments you can find in favour of getting something changed, including a signed affedavit from the Ministry of Transportation that a highway no longer exists, but if a Google staffer can't find it on his/her 1975 edition of a dog-eared Rand McNally map, you'll either get your edit denied or told condescendingly to "undo" the edit. In my brief stint as a Regional Expert Reviewer for Ontario, I ended up approving some edits that were obviously valid, that some Google employees in California had told users to "undo" because they "couldn't find the information" even though it took me under 30 seconds to find the same information. I don't think their employees even know how to use their own search engine; how hard could it have been, in one case from Richmond Hill I dealt with, to Google the name of the street and "Richmond Hill"?

If you're using Mapmaker, some of the Google "reviewers" to watch out for include "Brian K", "Nancy", and "Nick C". Do NOT trust anything they claim about Ontario roads or other features. Their holier-than-thou, condescending attitudes, claims about mapping methodologies that were contrary to Google's own guidelines, and generally disrespectful actions towards locally knowledgable mappers (such as quietly undoing valid edits with no explainations) are the reason I left Mapmaker - and now use only Mapquest for Canadian or U.S. mapping.

Wharn · #**504** Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

With Mapmaker, you can have all the arguments you can find in favour of getting something changed, including a signed affedavit from the Ministry of Transportation that a highway no longer exists, but if a Google staffer can't find it on his/her 1975 edition of a dog-eared Rand McNally map, you'll either get your edit denied or told condescendingly to "undo" the edit. In my brief stint as a Regional Expert Reviewer for Ontario, I ended up approving some edits that were obviously valid, that some Google employees in California had told users to "undo" because they "couldn't find the information" even though it took me under 30 seconds to find the same information. I don't think their employees even know how to use their own search engine; how hard could it have been, in one case from Richmond Hill I dealt with, to Google the name of the street and "Richmond Hill"?

If you're using Mapmaker, some of the Google "reviewers" to watch out for include "Brian K", "Nancy", and "Nick C". Do NOT trust anything they claim about Ontario roads or other features. Their holier-than-thou, condescending attitudes, claims about mapping methodologies that were contrary to Google's own guidelines, and generally disrespectful actions towards locally knowledgable mappers (such as quietly undoing valid edits with no explainations) are the reason I left Mapmaker - and now use only Mapquest for Canadian or U.S. mapping.

I don't plan to use Mapmaker because I have better things to do with my time than start edit wars with retarded Americans. Google Maps used to be good, but now there is all sorts of incorrect information that just makes it completely unreliable. For example: a few days ago, Cummer Avenue, a road that has existed since the mid 1800s, mysteriously disappeared from Toronto. For its entire length, it was replaced by McNicoll Avenue, a 1970s extension of the same road. Despite this, Old Cummer Avenue was untouched. Logic dictates that if there is an "Old Cummer", there must be a "New Cummer" somewhere else, but apparently Google didn't consider this. Now, if I had printed out a map telling me to go to "144 McNicoll Avenue", I would have ended up somewhere on Cummer between Yonge and Bayview.

On another note, Highbury Avenue South has been changed to "N. Highbury Avenue" after remaining correct and unchanged for several years... what gives? Someone should write Google, tell them their product is shit and ban the reviewers.

manny_santos · #**505** Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wharn

I don't plan to use Mapmaker because I have better things to do with my time than start edit wars with retarded Americans. Google Maps used to be good, but now there is all sorts of incorrect information that just makes it completely unreliable. For example: a few days ago, Cummer Avenue, a road that has existed since the mid 1800s, mysteriously disappeared from Toronto. For its entire length, it was replaced by McNicoll Avenue, a 1970s extension of the same road. Despite this, Old Cummer Avenue was untouched. Logic dictates that if there is an "Old Cummer", there must be a "New Cummer" somewhere else, but apparently Google didn't consider this. Now, if I had printed out a map telling me to go to "144 McNicoll Avenue", I would have ended up somewhere on Cummer between Yonge and Bayview.

That's basically why I left - I told my Google "mentor" that I have better things to do with my time than to argue over road priority designations. At the time I left, I talked to another Regional Expert Reviewer (RER) in B.C. and he was about ready to pack it in for the same reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wharn

On another note, Highbury Avenue South has been changed to "N. Highbury Avenue" after remaining correct and unchanged for several years... what gives? Someone should write Google, tell them their product is shit and ban the reviewers.

I had submitted an edit at one point to designate Highbury, north of the Thames River only, as "Highbury Avenue North" as that is the proper name as per the City of London. Obviously some idiot thought it would be funny to move the "N" to the beginning and apply the designation all the way south.

Now, please excuse me while I take London's very own National Highway from Lambeth to Second Street, so I get get to Fanshawe College. I may take a lot longer than I normally would, because I'm just following Google's directions!

Wharn · #**506** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 1:33 AM**

Speaking of Google Maps, has anyone seen the latest aerial imagery for London? It was taken sometime in Spring or Fall, and it looks like shit. Literally. Every single forested area in the city is a shade of brown, and so is the Thames River. The South Branch is particularly brown. To add insult to injury, a lot of the recent construction projects aren't even finished yet, adding yet even more bare brown landscape. It's hideous.

haljackey · #**507** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 4:58 AM**

Huh, what do ya know, Google actually updated the imagery for London!

Google Earth is telling me the date it was taken was April 29, 2011. That's why it looks crappy... snow has melted but the trees and vegetation haven't blossomed yet.

London's prior imagery was on May 2, 2006, so at least it's consistent in terms of the 'look' of the city.

manny_santos · #**508** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 3:20 PM**

Some moron thought it would be funny to put the name "County Road 2" on the National Highway (former Highway 2) through London. And the Highway 4 routing, at least along Wharncliffe Road, now has flowerpot symbols. There has never been a County Road 4 signed along this route.

The only evidence I have ever seen of a supposed "County Road 2" through London was on a Rand McNally map of the city, which is where I think the Google Maps operators in California use for its Canadian information.

Wharn · #**509** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Some moron thought it would be funny to put the name "County Road 2" on the National Highway (former Highway 2) through London. And the Highway 4 routing, at least along Wharncliffe Road, now has flowerpot symbols. There has never been a County Road 4 signed along this route.

It's a bit hard to have a county road through a single-tier municipality that is politically separate from the county.

Stay tuned next week as Fanshawe Park Road is renamed National Highway 22.

MolsonExport · #**510** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 6:03 PM**

Anybody check to see if swastika gardens is still with us? Hyde Park and Fascist drive.

MolsonExport · #**511** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 6:24 PM**

^fuck it is still there! I just checked. Hyde park aerials date from no more than half a year ago.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=hyde+pa...tario&t=h&z=18

Wharn · #**512** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 9:57 PM**

I notice the shit-map conveniently ends right around Swastika Gardens' neighbourhood.

Snark · #**513** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 12:25 AM**

1) The new aerials on Google are provided by the City. They paid a contractor to have it re-flown last April, and are the same imagery as is on the City's web site. Typically, urban municipalities have their city re-flown every 2 - 4 years for GIS purposes.

2) Why image in April when everything is still dead? Simple: if you are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for aerial photography, wouldn't you want to see more than 50% of the surface of the ground in those images? The images are useless as an analysis tool unless a user can see everything. Foliage looks nice, but ruins the technical value of the images. Aerial photography of urban areas in the Spring is common for this reason.

3) Why still the swastika? The old dead Nazi lived in the township and the City isn't going to pay for that. Hyde Park is in the city and thus was imaged - Colonel Klink was not. Everyone will have to wait 'till the County re-flys its territory (usually once every 10 years), or Google gets new material from an alternate supplier.

K85 · #**514** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 1:24 AM**

So if I hire a plane to do this, I could have it sent to the city and thus to google probono? (hypothetical)

MolsonExport · #**515** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 3:14 AM**

I hadn't thought of the (probable) stitching together of new/old images. That old nazi fuk has been pushing daisies for about a year, but his swastika looks as fresh as ever....so fresh, that I reckon it is indeed the original image.
I hope so. It bothers the hell out of me. I am married to an Asian and naturally have biracial children. Having such a giant symbol of racial hatred (even if inverted to 'ostensibly' represent the hindu circle of life as opposed to nazism) less than two kms from my home (I live in the land of Liver and Onions)...

nothing that some gasoline and a match wouldn't fix.

haljackey · #**516** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 3:18 AM**

Oh look at Bradley and Wonderland: http://g.co/maps/fysjc

And Wonderland/401: http://g.co/maps/ffda5

K85 · #**517** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 3:13 PM**

I am confused by the above post

manny_santos · #**518** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by K85

I am confused by the above post

I think his point was that certain proposed road re-alignments that are associated with the Wonderland/401 interchange have already been added as actual roads.

The only point I can glean from the Bradley Ave comment is that it has been drawn in as "planned". I actually was the one who added that, but of course using the old imagery.

K85 · #**519** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 6:49 AM**

Ah, when I clicked the links, they opened up, but didn't open up right. Both just showed the roads, and only the roads.

Pimpmasterdac · #**520** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 8:43 PM**

Looks like the city might be trying to bring red light camera's to busy intersections.

Quote:

Mayor sees red on lights

"If you're irked by drivers who blow through intersections long after amber has turned to red, take heart.

Mayor Joe Fontana is ready for a crackdown.

Fontana says the installation of red-light cameras, like the one at right, or remote radar to catch speeders could be a part of a new city strategy to improve traffic safety."

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2.../19486536.html

With so many morons out on our streets, and the seeming de facto acceptability of late red runners and turns, as much as its a money grab might be needed to slap some sense into drivers.