June 18, 2012 at 19:10Why I do not believe in 3D maps
In late May, Apple announced 3d cards in iOS 6; in early June, Google also introduced its 3d maps . Obviously, we are witnessing a new stage in the battle for map users on the web.
True, a small question arises: do users really need this three-dimensionality? Will the availability of 3d killer features of map services become?
It seems to me that no.
What is a geographical map? This is a schematic , conditional image of the area. What is its meaning? To orient the user on medium and large scales (from the district of the city and above).
The map does not solve (or poorly solves) the street-to-house orientation problem: for this, StreetView, augmented reality, pseudo-3d in navigators are just invented. “Failing” into street panoramas, determining the user's position and guiding along the route - these are just must have for map services, since the map-scheme cannot solve the problem “where am I now and in which direction”.
On the other hand, StreetView cannot solve the problem of determining “where is the nearest (metro station | gas station | beach)” or “how can I (go to the library | leave the city | see the sights)”.
A realistic image of the area cannot be solved by these cases simply because it contains too much information and, by and large, does not provide almost anything new in comparison with what the user already sees with his own eyes. Ok, augmented realty can tell you that the restaurant is well-fed, and the panoramas will help you find another restaurant a little further down this street. But almost no way to find restaurants in the area and figure out where to go - this requires a scheme.
A schematic map is, in fact, an infographic of a district. This is by no means a realistic depiction of the terrain - this is an informative diagram of the terrain.
Now, along with panoramas and augmented reality, 3d appears. Can it replace one of the two card use cases - indicative or informational?
On the one hand, the 3D map of the area is, by definition, less detailed than StreetView - instead of full-fledged photos, the textures on the houses are stretched here. A 3D card of the same quality will require many times more traffic, and from a purely utilitarian point of view it will be no better than conventional panoramas. Not to mention the fact that making 3d maps is much more expensive, which means that they will be updated less frequently than StreetView.
On a district / city scale, 3d maps are completely useless - virtually the same as satellite imagery. They drastically reduce the readability of the circuit, without offering any goodies in return.
Perhaps 3d-cards can be integrated somewhere between these two cases? But how? The ideal mapping service (which allows both cases to be solved simultaneously) does not seem to exist. In any case, 3d does not allow to fit on the screen simultaneously the infographics of the area, and a sufficient number of signs about the user's local environment.
So, it seems to me that the lot of 3d in maps is a short-term wow effect, about the same as from satellite images - “wow, my house! wow, Colosseum! ”- but not a killer feature for a map service.
UPD I read the comments and I want to make an explanation. I am not against 3D at all - technology as technology, in fact - a more expensive and traffic-intensive streetview.
And, of course, I do not mind the money of Apple and Google, let them spend what they want. However, it seems to me that in this case we are dealing with a purely marketing desire to overcome local competitors who stupidly cannot afford to invest so much money in cards. That is why Apple and Google with such fanaticism are promoting this (a) not new, (b) useless toy.
True, a small question arises: do users really need this three-dimensionality? Will the availability of 3d killer features of map services become?
It seems to me that no.
What is a geographical map? This is a schematic , conditional image of the area. What is its meaning? To orient the user on medium and large scales (from the district of the city and above).
The map does not solve (or poorly solves) the street-to-house orientation problem: for this, StreetView, augmented reality, pseudo-3d in navigators are just invented. “Failing” into street panoramas, determining the user's position and guiding along the route - these are just must have for map services, since the map-scheme cannot solve the problem “where am I now and in which direction”.
On the other hand, StreetView cannot solve the problem of determining “where is the nearest (metro station | gas station | beach)” or “how can I (go to the library | leave the city | see the sights)”.
A realistic image of the area cannot be solved by these cases simply because it contains too much information and, by and large, does not provide almost anything new in comparison with what the user already sees with his own eyes. Ok, augmented realty can tell you that the restaurant is well-fed, and the panoramas will help you find another restaurant a little further down this street. But almost no way to find restaurants in the area and figure out where to go - this requires a scheme.
A schematic map is, in fact, an infographic of a district. This is by no means a realistic depiction of the terrain - this is an informative diagram of the terrain.
Now, along with panoramas and augmented reality, 3d appears. Can it replace one of the two card use cases - indicative or informational?
On the one hand, the 3D map of the area is, by definition, less detailed than StreetView - instead of full-fledged photos, the textures on the houses are stretched here. A 3D card of the same quality will require many times more traffic, and from a purely utilitarian point of view it will be no better than conventional panoramas. Not to mention the fact that making 3d maps is much more expensive, which means that they will be updated less frequently than StreetView.
On a district / city scale, 3d maps are completely useless - virtually the same as satellite imagery. They drastically reduce the readability of the circuit, without offering any goodies in return.
Perhaps 3d-cards can be integrated somewhere between these two cases? But how? The ideal mapping service (which allows both cases to be solved simultaneously) does not seem to exist. In any case, 3d does not allow to fit on the screen simultaneously the infographics of the area, and a sufficient number of signs about the user's local environment.
So, it seems to me that the lot of 3d in maps is a short-term wow effect, about the same as from satellite images - “wow, my house! wow, Colosseum! ”- but not a killer feature for a map service.
UPD I read the comments and I want to make an explanation. I am not against 3D at all - technology as technology, in fact - a more expensive and traffic-intensive streetview.
And, of course, I do not mind the money of Apple and Google, let them spend what they want. However, it seems to me that in this case we are dealing with a purely marketing desire to overcome local competitors who stupidly cannot afford to invest so much money in cards. That is why Apple and Google with such fanaticism are promoting this (a) not new, (b) useless toy.