Microsoft has kept its Bing Maps program moving forward. At the recent Search Engine Marketing Expo West (SMX) in Santa Clara, Steve Ballmer in his keynote indicated that his favorite part of Bing was….Bing Maps!

Previous to the conference, Bing Maps announced one of its largest imagery updates ever, posting over 8 million square kilometers of new imagery over the last two months.

Imagery seems to be a focus of Microsoft. I mentioned in a previous blog that Microsoft was talking up the possibility of capturing a new comprehensive imagery database of the United States at a resolution of 1 foot. It is my understanding that the two-year program will involve the creation of an imagery database for Bing Maps (who knows what other uses are planned) and start this month. Coverage will include Western Europe and North America (USA & Southern Canada). Microsoft appears to be building a Bing Base that could become the reference platform for on-line geo-solutions. Seems as if MSOFT may be thinking about the GIS Market (especially since Microsoft SQL is now geo-capable).

As many of you know, Microsoft and NAVTEQ signed a deal in December
in which Microsoft hopes to benefit from using “…street level visuals powered by NAVTEQ.” NAVTEQ in turn revealed what it had in mind at CES, where they announced that their new Advanced Mapping Collection Technology included a combined system of panoramic and high-resolution cameras to support the production of street level imagery that would provide an “immersive” picture of a location (as well as GPS and IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) positioning.

Of course, Microsoft had already tipped their hat here with the technology preview they posted on the web. Take a look.

Last week Navizonannounced that it had been selected by Microsoft to provide it access to Navizon’s global (really?) crowd sourced database related to software-only hybrid wireless positioning. In other words, Navizon collects information from cellular towers and Wi-Fi access points to triangulate locations based on signal strength in a manner similar to that used by SkyHook Wireless. It appears that NAVTEQ’s new dilithium-crystal-powered vans do not include quite as comprehensive a suite to sensors as do the Google vans, (although some aspects of the NAVTEQ vans might give Google some competitive problems).

Where all of this comes together is in a presentation made by the Chief Architect of Bing Maps Blaise Aguera y Arcas at the TED conference held last month. I will embed the video below, but in case it does not work you can find it here.

By adding Photosynth integration to their Streetside imagery and geotagged images from Flickr (Google is doing the same type of fusion with Street View and Panaramio) Bing is integrating crowd-sourced imagery that could allow many types of exploration, including a “time travel” like system. For instance, in the future, say 2020, one could possibly request to see photos merged into Streetside that were from 2009 to see what changes had occurred along block faces during this period. In addition, since Bing has indicated that it will provide imagery that will allow you to leave the street and enter buildings, they are setting the stage for virtual worlds. I guess all of this focus on virtual worlds is good, especially since Bing and Google cannot get their map data for the real world straightened out. Of course, it won’t matter, since we won’t need to leave home to go anywhere in our virtual worlds.

It appears to me that Microsoft wants to be considered a major player in the world of mapping. However, there are three things missing from their approach. First, they are reliant of NAVTEQ for map data. Second, they currently do not have a program to advantage their mapping efforts through the use of User Generated Content. Third, they do not have a difference-making presence in the mobile world.

It is possible, however, that Microsoft may be styling itself as a “cartography” shop, rather than a navigable database shop. For example, Microsoft’s presentation of NAVTEQ data, though flawed, is better than any other use of the data including those by NAVTEQ and the OVI Maps website of its owner Nokia. Someone at Microsoft understand the “Nature of Maps”, as the company’s maps are well designed and the human factors aspects involved in the use of Bing Maps are far superior to the interface available for use in Google Maps or any other online website.

Let’s think more about the potential future for Bing Maps, next time.

Mike Blumenthal sent me an interesting note concerning a situation in which a florist in New Zealand hijacked the listings of other florists to enhance the revenues at her flower shop and is going to do some time in jail as a result.

While there are at least two interesting aspects of the article, the first that that caught my eye is this claim by a Google spokesperson, “Every hour, our users make over 10,000 corrections or additions to Google Maps, like updating the position of markers or correcting other small errors, and for the most part people are being really helpful to other users.”

If the quote about the rate of map corrections and augmentations submitted is true, then there are close to a million corrections every four days with some 87,600,000 of them processed each year. Clearly, these must be independent of the requests for map changes, since the requested changes are focused on corrections that cannot be made by users. No wonder Google couldn’t figure out how to include the I-195 realignment in Providence, they just did not have the time!

I am presuming that these map changes are being made across Google’s map inventory worldwide, but the number of corrections still boggles the mind. How bad can these maps be (and that includes the Google-mapbase)? If there are 10,000 corrections an hour, when will the number of map corrections surpass the number of hamburgers McDonald’s has sold?

In addition, at this rate of change, when will Google Maps become perfect? The calculation, of course, is trivial and the answer is June 22, 2014.

Well, that is if all of the corrections and augmentations by the “map editors” are independent and, of course, correct. I can envisage that the changes made by person “A” to the map are then corrected by person “B” whose changes are corrected by person “C” and so one until the map is changed back to its original state where the cycle starts anew. This sounds like a great, new game idea for the iPhone App Store.

Topic 2

Today on my local news I heard about some local businessmen suing YELP in a class-action indicating that they alleged that YELP extorted a Cats & Dogs Animal Hospital (asked them to take a paid subscription) in order to have YELP take down a negative review.

Well, that certainly is a unique business model, or is it? Now, back to the article on Google that I started with. Just after the quote I gave you above (which I have replicated below), was a second sentence.

“Every hour, our users make over 10,000 corrections or additions to Google Maps, like updating the position of markers or correcting other small errors, and for the most part people are being really helpful to other users.”

“We recommend that small business owners claim their listing in the Local Business Centre to control the edits made to their listings, and if they do so, recommend they keep their listing really up to date themselves.”

I put some emphasis on the quote to highlight “…for the most part…” Would you care to quantify that Google?

Yep, it appears, it was news to Google that businesses were experiencing trouble controlling the information in listing describing the business that they owned. According to the SmartCompany article, “A Google spokesperson says the company is aware of the case, but says it is the first attempt the company has heard of involving malicious intent. She says Google recommends businesses make sure their listings are up-to-date.”

How about that? I had been told the Google had a colossally sophisticated algorithm that sniffed out and destroyed bogus changes in business listings (even though this practice was, apparently, news to the spokesperson). I was told that the algorithm is related to the same one that sniffs out and destroys those bogus map changes. Apparently, the team responsible for creating these algorithms did not have a requirements document to aid their development work. I mean does Google do anything that is not driven by one of the world’s most complex algorithms? WEll, maybe getting business listings correct is soemthing than cannot be automated. Hmmmm. How self serving – but maybe true.

So, business owners, here is your charge, “Damn the algorithms, just claim your business listing on Google, and Yahoo, and Yelp, and Bing, and infoUSA, and Dogpile (yes, it does exist) and…blah, blah, blah, blah.”

A couple of years ago I predicted that Intuit might get into this business and straighten in out since they already have contacts with many business owners. Well, Intuit is now giving it a go and I wish them luck.

Topic 3

Both of the maps shown below were captured tonight (February 25, 2010). As you can see, the MapQuest map routes people across the new I-195 bridge in Providence, even though they do not seem to be able to figure out where to put the highway shield.

Now look at this

The NAVTEQ route ignores the new bridge and continues to use the section of I-195 that has been closed and is being demolished.

So, the question appears to be “Is MapQuest mixing other data with NAVTEQ data?” Hmmm. I thought that mixing data was one of the reasons that NAVTEQ dropped Nav4All. You can never tell why licensing deals go south due to confidentiality issues, but you might want to take a look at this site if you are interested in further details. It’s beginning to look a little grim out there in the brave new world of mapping.

Part 4

Finally, it appears that there have been approximately 3.5 million User Generated Corrections to the Google-Mapbase since I wrote my column and none of them seem to have led to anyone at Google noticing the problem in Providence As you can see below, they just can’t seem to find the new bridge and prefer to use the demolished highway.

Maybe that User Generated Tower of Power I wrote about isn’t going to work out for the Googies!

I had thought that maybe I would be able to move on to some ideas about local mapping, but I received a comment from Don today (Don is a member of the GIS Hall of Fame and a friend that I have known for a long time), “chastising” me about the fact that I left TeleAtlas out of my last blog and letting me know that I should look at TA’s version of the intersection in Providence on routes.tomtom.com. Don is an authority, so I thought I had better take a look. I did and now we won’t be able to move on to a new topic until next time. Blame Don.

Don, I did not include TA maps in my blog because I could not remember anyone of note who used TA data in North America for their online mapping. In addition, although I have a TomTom PND, my experience with it (more specifically the software in it and the abysmal level of customer service) has led me to abandon it, so using it was not an option to view the I-195 realignment. I agree, however, I should have been more comprehensive in my search for examples of the realignment of I-195 in Providence and for that, I apologize. I remedy that omission below and would welcome any further thoughts you have on the topic.

There is an additional piece of information that all of you should know concerning the blog in which I discussed the Providence realignment. I gave a thanks to “Jim” in the original blog on this topic. Jim Donahue sent me a personal note on the realignment of I-195 in Providence. He informed me of several interesting issues.

Jim indicated “…the Rte 95 and Rte 195 interchange has been completely moved and redesigned. In early November, the work was completed as far as the ramps and such so that the old maps were 100% wrong at that point.”

Jim continued, “… the Navteq and TeleAtlas maps show 50% of the work completed at this point.” Jim even noted, “… that several mapping sources were showing traffic flows at night on sections of the roadway that were being shut down in the evening for dismantling.”

In a further communication to me, Jim noted that he and others he knows allow TomTom to download their GPS traces, but that TomTom/TeleAtlas have not yet fully updated their maps. In addition, Jim added “I’m not sure how they figure people are flying over water these days.”

Obviously, I am not located in Providence or I would be getting up earlier in the morning. My information, therefore, is second hand, but I believe it to be correct. To confirm the information, I called the Providence DOT and their representative assured me that the old I-195 loop to the north had been closed and is currently being demolished. All traffic is now flowing across the new bridge to the south. In addition, I wrote Jim Donahue, my original source and asked him the same question. His reply was “The old ‘loop’ was closed in November. All traffic now travels over the new bridge. There are still some exits that they are working on but the main roadway is completed and up and running. As I said before they are tearing down the old roadway right now at night.”

Now back to Don and beating a dead horse – I admit that I looked at Don’s comment early in the morning (well, early for me) and then went to the routes.tomtom.com website in search of the intersection. Here is what I found. The TomTom map shows the old north loop of I-195 as part of the transportation network. The north loop has been closed and is being demolished.

Here is the relalignment as shown by OpenStreetMap and they seem to have it right

Once again, here one of the advisory maps put out by the Providence DOT.

And here is an impossible route from the east to I-195 south using the TomTom routing website.

And here is a screenshot of traffic.com taken this morning showing traffic flowing on the old north loop of I-195 that has been closed and is being demolished.

As I said at the end of the first blog on the Providence, realignment, there has to be a better way of gathering local map data. Maybe it is OSM, maybe it is something else. More next time.

First, let me say that I am a fan of OSM (OpenStreetMap) and hope that the venture continues its past successes. I am writing this mini-blog to reply to the large number of people who wrote to let me know that OSM data is routable. Rather than reply to each of you, I thought I could reply once in response to all of your comments (and I appreciated hearing from so many of you).

In response to my last article, Richard commented that OSM (and he provided a link to the OSM website) had the most up-to-date map of the I-195 interchange in Providence that I had written about. I thanked Richard and noted, “Although the OSM data is not navigable, it appears up-to-date….blah, blah, blah.”

In my response, I was referring to the OSM page and data that could be accessed though the link Richard supplied. It is my understanding that OSM through its website does not provide routing or navigation services. My comment seems to have caught the attention of a number of readers and since the topic appears of more general interest than most of my other topics, I decided to write a short reply.

The terrific comments I received about OSM data being routable started me wondering. Since others route with OSM data, why doesn’t OSM provide that service? Anytime you see a carve-out, you should strategize that somebody smells money and try to figure out where (as in Where 2.0)! In this case, however, the money (and I suspect there is not much of it) seems to be in providing routing software and associated services, since any augmentations of the data to allow for routing would become part of the OSM map database. There must be more to the carve-out than apparent.

Next, as you may remember, recently I asked Mike Moore about the level of attribution in NAVTEQ’s database after he made a comment that I found it difficult to accept. In the same vein, I would like to ask, “What percent of the road segments in the OSM database are attributed for navigation?” Let’s look a little deeper.

My interest here is in understanding the competitive threat of OSM to commercial providers of navigable database. For example, presumably, one-hundred percent of the streets and roads in the databases of NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas have been attributed for navigation and, presumably, the same is true for the Google-Mapbase. Before anyone starts in, I agree that the depth of attribution is unclear for the databases provided by any of the companies mentioned.

My interest in asking this question of OSM is that anyone can calculate routes between locations of coordinates shown on a piece of graph paper, so being able to route across an unattributed map is not of particular interest. If I introduce directional constraints and turn restraints (in a way that would mirror traffic laws in a community, or barriers or other impediments to navigation), I make the routes less efficient, but more realistic. OSM’s data structure, however, contemplates navigation attributes. Therefore, the question that I would like to understand about OSM is, “What percent of their database is attributed for routing?” From the perspective of the user, this question may convert into “How reliable is routing using the OSM data?”

I realize that OSM data coverage is increasing and that the comprehensiveness of the OSM database will increase over time. However, my interest is its status now in respect to routing.

For many of us, it seems so difficult to discover things about OSM, its data, and the use of the data. Maybe I just need to spend more time reading their Wiki (guilty). However, I admit that I am confused about OSM licensing practices and liability issues. Every time that I start to research these issues, I get a headache. While I think I understand the limitations of the license to use OSM data and why these “carve-outs” are necessary, I find it difficult to understand how to use the data to any commercial advantage and wonder if that will limit the usefulness of OSM’s contribution.

As I understand it, you cannot make any changes/augmentations to the OSM map database unless you provide those augmentations/changes back to OSM. For example, it appears that a company willing to collect road attributes related to the routing of hazmat materials through a country, could not use OSM as a database, unless they were willing to provide their hazmat related attributes to OSM. Since specialized uses of data may require non-crowd sourced data acquisition and considerable expense, it appears that cases like this limit OSM.

Here is a more concrete example taken, from the OSM Wiki about using OSM data in a SatNav System. The question listed there is “The user wants to use OSM data in a satnav system. They need to be able to convert the data into a confidential proprietary format that works with their routing software which they don’t want to disclose.” The answer provided is “Due to the “technical measures” section, a non-confidential, non-proprietary version would have to be redistributed also.” I am not sure how this notion works in a commercial environment, but maybe it does for some.

As many of you who read this blog know, I am a great supporter of User Generated Content and believe it will change the nature of mapping. However, there are areas where User Generated Content may not work. At a presentation on User Generated Content that I made to a group from the automobile industry, I was stopped by this response “Well, I certainly would not want to drive a User Generated Car.” Of course, the audience responded in whoops of laughter, but it sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Perhaps the question translates to, “Do I want to be in a car being routed using data that is entirely user generated and for which no one assumes liability?” Sounds like an interesting topic for a future blog.

Once again, thanks for all of the comments, links and help.

Finally, I apologize for the delay in my response to your comments, but I seem to get up later than most of you. Of course, it is likely that I am in a different time zone than many of you. However, the real reason I have been getting up late is that after finishing my days work, I have been keeping my XBOX 360 and PS3 very busy playing Mass Effect 2 on one and Bioshock 2 on the other. By the way, you can call me “Big Daddy!”

In one of my last columns, a reader raised the issue of the real “value” of free data, suggesting that with Google’s free map data that you get what you pay for. Since that comment, Nokia decided to enter the “free” map market by provisioning a subset of its higher-end phones with NAVTEQ Maps (Nokia owns NAVTEQ).

I think there are at least two strategies at work here. First, Nokia is attempting to protect its market position as a handset provider in the United States and Europe by offering a service competitive or superior to Google in terms of the quality of its map data. The second part of the strategy may be an attempt to expand its market dominance in areas where Google currently does not have the navigable map database coverage that NAVTEQ can provide Nokia. On the other hand, Google, through inputs from Google Map Maker, can provide navigation for pedestrians in more locations than those in which NAVTEQ has car-navigation databases and this may allow Google to be more successful in countries where cars are not the principal means of transportation.

However, as we have postulated before the key differentiator in many geographical markets may not be the map data or the navigation services themselves, but the supporting role they play in local search and, perhaps, social networking in respect to geo-targeted advertising.

In an interview with Kevin Dennehy of GPS World http://www.gpsworld.com/lbs/did-googles-market-grab-spur-tcs-purchase-nim-9246 I indicated that “…Google is not competing directly with TeleNav, TeleAtlas, MapQuest or anyone else who is not in the advertising business. All the poor souls in mapping, navigation, LBS and Local Search are being crushed by Google’s relentless innovation to produce a better advertising engine. It is impossible for most application companies to compete with Google today, because Google regards their “apps” as a means to an end, not as the core business. They are making so much money that they can afford to innovate, spend 50 million on a project and “dump it” if it does not work they way the want it to work.” I added, “While the end user may think of Google as a utility providing search services, map services, routing services and information services, Google thinks of itself as an advertising engine that has an opportunity to touch its end-users with advertising everywhere they go.”

If my insights on this topic have any value, it is in raising two interesting questions. First, “Just what level of accuracy does Google require to support its advertising business?” Next, “What influence will Google’s data quality have on the rest of the industry?” The most troubling aspect of this latter question, at least to me, is the difficulty of increasing the accuracy of map databases while dealing with the increasing costs of data acquisition in a market that seems destined to provide free map data and routing services. However, let’s get talk about the Google data quality issue and then move on to other topics next week.

As noted previously in this blog, Google dumped TeleAtlas because they were unhappy with the accuracy of the product and thought they could do better. Perhaps this is where we can start the trail of trying to determine Google’s map accuracy goals. Although it is still very early in the game, Google is not providing data that is more accurate than its competitors are providing and in most cases is not providing data as accurate as its competitors map data. Google seems to have adopted its “free” model based on this sentiment – “We will provide the map base and keep it relatively current, but you, Mr. or Ms. User, need to fix what doesn’t work for you.” Is it possible that this will become the entry-level standard in the mapping industry? Of course, that means that you can provide input on map errors that is actually accepted, but let’s discuss that some other time.

Although Google has built an map compilation engine that should be able to solve the map accuracy and currentntess problems of the industry, having built the engine is neither the measure of an ability to integrate it into a system that can solve the problem, nor a measure of the ability of the Google Team to manage a workable map update system to produce the desired level of results.

Some of the errors in the Google-mapbase are unforgivable. For instance, its maps are missing the I-195/I-95 re-alignment in Providence, even though their Street View offering provides imagery of the new alignment (I guess they just didn’t know that the road segment they were driving on was a new section of I-195). If you want more detail, take a look at this note from the Rhode Island DOT website. The DOT’s note ends with this interesting sentence, “Keep in mind that online mapping programs and GPS systems will not reflect these changes.” Thanks to Jim for pointing this out.

According to the Rhode Island DOT this is the situation on the ground. as of last October. You can download a PDF of this image that you can zoom to your hearts delight from the Rhode Island DOT.

Of course, if you look online at Bing Maps, you will see this

If you look at Navteq, you will see this (at least the traffic is stopped).

And Google

and look at the aerial image Google provides.

Ouch! If this is the best of premium data and free data, well, bring back the days of paper maps. Maybe there is an alternative. Let’s talk about that next time.

As I noted last time, User Generated Content could be the data gathering tool that lets Google surpass NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas in quality of data and spatial coverage. The potential “fly in the ointment” is “How “good” does the map data that Google is collecting need to be? This “fitness for use” question is difficult for an outsider to answer, but we can make some assumptions. Presumably, Google considers the data in the Google-Mapbase to be fit for mapping, routing, navigation and route guidance. If not, why would it have dumped TeleAtlas?

On the other hand, the data in the current version of the Google-Mapbase appears to me to be of lesser quality than that provided by TeleAtlas and a wider gap may exist between Google and NAVTEQ in terms of map accuracy, especially in the currentness of map attributes. How should we think about this issue?

Perhaps this conundrum is an example of the situation that other pundits are referring to as “good enough” in reference to their belief that the navigation market may be driven to produce map databases of less accuracy than the “high precision map databases” that will be needed to support Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) targeted at driver safety and the advanced Energy Management systems (EM) targeted at efficient use of the power/drive train in vehicles.

I guess this recently exposed “good enough” argument means that Google got rid of the data from its supplier of navigable map databases (TeleAtlas) so they could collect and publish inferior data. You know, more people should read this blog.

Google, by its own admission, could not find a way to get its supplier (TeleAtlas) to actively work to enhance the quality of its map database and resolve the inadequacies that Google had been complaining about over a lengthy period. Although Google parted ways with NAVTEQ for strategic reasons after Nokia acquired NAVTEQ, it was quite clear that Google was unimpressed by the quality of NAVTEQ’s data during the period it was a licensee of NAVTEQ.

Clearly, Google took a run at creating a navigable map database in order to improve the accuracy of their maps, navigation and route guidance capabilities. Does anyone honestly think that the company will not industriously endeavor to enhance the Google-Mapbase? Really!

Another group of pundits is claiming that now that they have had an opportunity to really examine the Google Maps Navigation application (a beta) that it is “behind” on several features and that Google will need to update its application to be competitive with features offered by other providers of navigation services. Give me a break. Does anyone honestly think that Google is going to stop its cycle of continuous improvement? Google’s application will improve and Google will continue to deliver innovative products and concepts as part of programs designed to enhance its ability to deliver targeted advertising to its customers wherever they may be on whatever device they may be using, even when they switch between devices.

It is my opinion that the “good enough” argument and the “inferior application” arguments reflect a lack of understanding of the potential revolution that Google is attempting in the collection of map data for navigation quality databases. Google’s current applications may not have all of the features of PNDs or even other navigation systems on phones. The reasons they are lacking these features is that Google does not yet have the attribute data that would allow them to provide posted speed limits, avoid toll routes, take scenic routes, or other features that are data dependent. So, the really interesting question is “Does Google have the right approach to maintaining a navigation quality map database?” In essence, “Can Google overcome the 25 year head start enjoyed by NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas?” Of course it can.

We looked at my proposed model of Google data revision activities last time and now will discuss more details on the model.

I noted that User Generated Content (UGC) will become the “quarterback” of Google’s data collection efforts. My belief is that UGC, in the form of customer complaints, map corrections, map additions, business listing updates, probe data, Google Map Maker and Street View Advertisements, will help focus Google on the weaknesses of their map database and proscribe where Google needs either to mine its Street View data or send its Street View vehicles to gather additional data. Alternatively, Google could use UGC as a diagnostic indicating where it needs to search for and, then, conflate better attribute data than it used in its original pass through a geographic area.

The potential use of “billboard” space in Street View images appears in a patent issued to Google recently and could benefit Google by enhancing its address database and business listing database through improved communication with business owners and neighborhood interest groups likely to use this advertising service. (Some may not know this, but Google AdWords has a branch that makes online advertising available to charitable institutions in an effort to help these groups publicize their charities. Imagine all of the good local information Google might be able to learn by assisting charities with their “local” advertising activities using Street View as inventory.)

Mining the “collective intelligence of Google users” is a longer term play for the company, but one that will reap substantial benefits when the Google Maps Navigation application succeeds in convincing users of phones equipped with the application to use Google rather than other navigation alternatives. If the price (free) were not enough of an incentive, users will likely find that Google’s database is more up-to-date and more accurate than the databases provided by others in the marketplace. This argument takes us back to the notion that Google doesn’t have better algorithms, it just has more data to mine and more data mining means improved navigation data, over time.

UGC, however, is generally unstructured in a spatial sense, meaning the user controls the changes and selects that area where change data is reported. In essence, when UGC is an “active” process Google responds to the changes reported, but has no ability to direct the geographic tendencies of their map error reporters. This is opposed to the field efforts of several mapping companies in which the company actively directs its field teams to canvass geographic areas based on reports of errors and, also, on the basis of a comprehensive collection process that attempts to re-canvass all map coverage over time.

It is here that we need to remember that UGC works best when it is governed by the law of large numbers – when you reach the tipping point, all bugs become shallow or, in respect to the present topic, all map corrections become shallow. The most important advantage that will accrue to Google in updating its Google-Mapbase is its future use of probe data, based on the potential input of the predicted number of users of a free navigation service available on the Android platform.

Probe data (following the bread-crumb trail of GPS signals registered by and locating your phone in space) can best be thought of as a change detection generator. When roads are closed for construction, probe data will immediately reflect the situation. When new roads are opened, probe data will immediately reflect this change by providing traces of movement in areas previously empty of such traces. If a traffic artery has been converted to one-way, probe data will immediately reveal the absence of the previously normal two-directional traffic. While probe data is not the sole panacea for improving map revision practices, it is a mechanism that will take much of the guess work out of where Google should deploy field collection assets, like Street View, to create improved map data.

Of course, the law of large numbers may work to Google’s disadvantage, especially if a large number of users object to having their paths tracked and saved in a Google data center. Even today, TomTom/TeleAtlas, whose MapShare program benefits from probe data collected from users who have opted-in to the service, strips the first two and last two minutes of travel from the probe paths they capture, to provide some degree of anonymity to the contributors of their data. While the data is contributed anonymously, it is clear that the only person leaving 6 Sesame Street each morning and returning to 6 Sesame Street each evening is likely a resident of that address. We will have to see how this issue plays out, but if it plays out in Google’s favor, it will be a game changer, especially when added to the other practices they use to gather map data.

Other Initiatives

I fully expect that Google will soon consider paying a select group of its UGC contributors for the data corrections they provide. Google, by creating an effective and feedback-equipped UGC map correction system, has enlisted the efforts of a large group of people known in the industry as those suffering from Cartosis! These poor folks are map-a-holics who just cannot get enough cartography. They love maps and would like nothing better than to spend their day editing the darn things. (Believe me, as former Chief Cartographer for Rand McNally, I was inundated with their letters demanding corrections, additions, deletions and various insights on our cartographic practices, as well as my personal lineage).

Every article I read on Google’s mapping efforts suggests that Google is benefitting from the contributions of these geo-specialists in ways that are eluding others in the map database field. Google is earning the good will of these people by incorporating their comments and making the changes they contribute visible on Google’s map displays in a relatively short time. If Google can harness the good-will of these folks, perhaps by a modest stipend – or simply an acknowledgement, they just might become the company’s best mapping-buds. While this may sound humorous to some, these people are very good at knowing their local area and sometimes exhibit significant levels of familiarity with broad geographic areas.

I suspect you are wondering why I am spending so much time on this group. Well, the one big problem for Google is that they do not really have a field collection force to gather data in areas where they know they are weak. Yes, they can send out Street View vehicles, but this is an inefficient way to resolve spatial problems that can be solved by local people. If I were Google, I’d be thinking very hard about how to incentivize their UGC data pros.

And Now, Apple?

How about this for a change in direction? Now that Apple has released their iPad (what an awful name), maybe they will turn to thinking about how they are going to use PlaceBase, the small mapping company they acquired last year. PlaceBase did some nice data integration and was known as for its data visualization efforts. However, the company did not support routing directly, although its API provided hooks for integrating routing from other services. It seems to me that Apple needs to work on mapping, routing and geography in general, but no one seems to know what they might be doing with PlaceBase. Any ideas? And don’t suggest the PlacePad, but maps on the iPad – now that’s a good idea.

Last time, I stuck the term “Ground-truth surrogate” into the list of terms that I felt we needed to define in order to move forward with our exploration of Google and map database updating. The definition of this term is – “Reference source of sufficient completeness and/or accuracy that may be substituted for field verification when measuring the completeness and/or accuracy of map database features, attributes or properties.”

The problem for producers of map databases is that there isn’t an available source of information comprehensive enough to be the catch-all that can be used to verify the completeness and or accuracy of all features, attributes and properties across the compiled map database – other than the earth itself. In turn, the traditional approach to verifying a compilation of information comprising a database created for mapping, navigation and route guidance is by field checking the quality of its content and usability. While field checking is undertaken to reveal specific errors and misinterpretations in the database, such efforts also reveal the shortcomings of the sources, sensors and methods used to create the database.

I think we need to evaluate the techniques and data sources that were used to compile the Google-Mapbase. More specifically, I will discuss their limitations, as this will help us understand what Google will need to do to remedy these lacks. (For those of you who have joined this blog recently, we covered the sources used to create the Google base here.)

What are the weaknesses of the techniques used by Google to create the Google-Mapbase?

Limitations of Satellite and other aerial imagery

Lack of uniformity – collected using variable specifications and imaged with platforms exhibiting different imagery characteristic.
Not up-to-date – collected at different points in time.
Obscurations and Obstructions preclude accurate mapping – coverage used by Google can be obscured by clouds. Road detail sometimes difficult to sense (manually or automatically) due to difficulties in object discovery and identification resulting from obstructions in line of sight (including leaf-on photography).
Spatial resolution inadequacies
Spectral resolution inadequacies
Heterogeneous approach, since the imagery varies in quality, specification, and up-to-datedness.

Take a look at some of these problems – all can be found on Google Maps.

Street View
Not up-to-date – two generations of sensors and specifications.
Not comprehensive – favors high-population density areas and major cities.
Resolution inaccuracies -imagery characteristics vary between early sensors and current sensors.
Cultural rejection – not all areas may accessible to the Street View platforms (cars, bikes, etc.). See this article and this for potential restrictions.

Conflation
We discussed some of the limitations of conflation in our last blog. Suffice it to say, conflating data often produces errors of one sort or another. Common problems include:
Lack of homogeneity in data quality across database
Data sets vary in data content,
Data sets vary in data quality,
Data sets vary in precision of measurement.
Mixing unique data sets potentially produces errors.

User Generated Content Related Compilation Processes

UGC is an uncontrolled ground-truth surrogate. There are at least three sources of UCG used by Google: contributed edits to Google maps, contributed maps to Google Map Maker, and probe data from persons using Google’s navigation app on cell phones.

In general, the people who contribute UGC exhibit self-selection (they update what interests them), limited spatial focus/interest, and often provide map edits for self-benefit. While none of these factors are unexpected, they do make it difficult to direct the data collectors to resolve specific problems by geographic areas.

In addition, user priorities may lead to unreliability, usability of the contributed data may be low and there may be prejudices in the responses. With enough contributors these limitations may become moot. However, there are some important questions that we cannot answer about this process. One is, “How many updates does Google receive from users of their maps?” Another is, “What is the spatial distribution of these users and their edits?”

Probe data can provide different benefits to map revision efforts, since mining the probe data provides a considerable amount of detail on the current configuration of roadways, their geometries, their flow speed and directionality, etc. However, once again, the user is self-directed and their probe-paths reflect self-focus/interest. Of course, the value of probe data will increase as the number of users of Android phones and Google’s navigation application increase, especially if that distribution is wide-spread in terms of spatial coverage. At present, the benefit to Google of probe data is likely to be insignificant for map updating.

Improving the Google-Mapbase

So, with all of these potentially flawed data gathering techniques, what is Google going to do to improve the quality of its Google-Mapbase?

Let’s, take a short step back. NAVTEQ, TeleAtlas and Google used many of the same techniques to create their map/navigation/route guidance capable databases. Google created its database faster than its two competitors by taking advantage of tools and capabilities that did not exist when NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas started compiling map database for navigation over twenty-five years ago.

NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas have had a longer period to refine their databases. In general, the belief in the industry is that NAVTEQ, who uses fieldwork both in the collection and evaluation of their data, has slightly better data quality than TeleAtlas in the United States and Europe. One surrogate for this ranking is the number of adoptions of one database or the other by manufacturers of in-car navigation systems, a field dominated by NAVTEQ.

Now, let’s turn to how Google, a newcomer, might catch-up with the market leaders. I suppose we could make the argument that Street View is a form of field collection and its results could be used as a form of field verification. I suspect that Street View will be part of the solution, but the significant event is something different. (At this point, I want to thank Allan Snell who sent me this link to Tim O’Reilly’s blog on the new Nexus-One phone from Google, as this article helped crystallize my thinking on the map updating topic.)

Let’s spend a second contemplating the source of Google’s success. In the article linked to above, O’Reilly states his belief that “Collective intelligence is the secret sauce of Web 2.0…” He includes a telling quote from Peter Norvig, Google’s Chief Scientist, who once told Tim “We don’t have better algorithms. We just have more data.” Change that quote to “We don’t have better algorithms. We just have more map-related data.” Now you have the difference between Google’s approach to map updating, as contrasted with that of the other players in the mapping marketplace.

Let’s look

Here is the layer cake that describes how Google created their Mapbase. As you may remember, I postulated that Google started its mapping efforts with satellite and other aerial imagery, added in what it learned from Street View and UGC, did some data mining to fill in the gaps and conflated new data to their geometry layer to create the Google-Mapbase.

Next, I present a figure that shows how Google will update the Google-Mapbase. (The colors used to identify a process are the same above and below, but their different positions shows the change in the importance of a category in the map revision process). Note that UCG will drive the map update process. It is my belief the UCG will be used to help Google understand the quality of its data and the spatial distribution of that quality. UCG will fundamentally influence all other map update processes for Google.

Now let’s look at an illustration of how Google will use UGC to direct their update process.

Click here for a PDF of this image (which you can zoom to your heart’s content). As noted above, UGC will become the bandleader indicating the what and where of data gathering efforts needed to improve the Google-Mapbase.

Finally, the following illustration shows why Google could dominate the map database market.

It is this UGC Tower of Power that will allow Google to progress in map update and quality faster than most people suspect. The key here is that Google has more map data collected by more people on the ground than it is possible for any existing map database company to collect, in any manner. I realize that TeleAtlas will want to argue about this, but Google either leads them now or soon will.
One more thing about the Tower of Power – remember back in grade school there was always some “brain” in the class who seemed to know more about everything than anyone else? Well, perhaps, you also remember those days when “braino” crapped out and the teacher began posing questions to the entire group about the subject.

It was this point that the magic started, as a number of people seemed to know a little different piece of information that when combined accurately described the issue of interest. Google realizes that our actions online can become a repository capable of reflecting the knowledge that we have about things that interest us in the real world. In turn, the collective intelligence of all of its users can provide valuable, authenticated, spatial information to help in the updating the Google-Mapbase. (Now you know why I don’t like the term “Volunteered Geographic Information” – much of the information we will provide Google will not what we intended to volunteer!)

How much improvement and how long it will take to realize the benefits of “collective intelligence” are another issue. Let’s talk about the details behind these diagrams next time. (I may be on the road next week (talk about waiting for last-minute contracts), but I will do my best to get the next blog out to you while I am on the road.

Oh, there is another fly in the ointment for Google. Seems that Microsoft is proposing creating a new, comprehensive, imagery base of the United States at a resolution of 1 foot. It is attempting to pull in states as its partners and will allow them the use of the data for an extremely attractive one-time price. Now why, do you suppose, Microsoft would be interested in having a homogeneous, current, large-scale imagery base of the United States? Hmmmm. Maybe because no one else has one! At least, not yet.

If you have not taken a look at Microsoft’s new Bing mapping package, it has some great features. Perhaps of more importance, their imagery base in Europe is much better than that currently provided by Google. Maybe something fun is shaping up?

We have previously spent some time discussing how Google compiled its Google-Mapbase and now turn to the how Google intends to update it. Just to make this all flow easier, we will use the following definitions, based on ISO 14825, the International Standard for Intelligent Transport systems – Geographic Data Files (GDF) – Overall data specifications. (It’s expensive to purchase, but if interested you can find more info here).

The information in quotes below is from the ISO GDF Standard.

“Accuracy – Closeness of results of observations, computations or estimates to the true values or the values as accepted as being true.”

“Up-to-dateness – Closeness in time of the geographic data to present reality.”

“Completeness – Extent to which the specified features are present.”

“Ground-truth surrogate – reference source of sufficient completeness and/or accuracy that may be substituted for field verification when measuring the completeness and/or accuracy of map database features, attributes or properties.”

“Attribute – characteristic of a feature which is independent of other features.”

“Feature – database representation of a real world object.”

“Property – combination of attribute and relationship values which pertain to a feature and which together define a certain characteristic of the feature.”

“Relationship – characteristic of a feature involving other features.”

So, let’s get started.

As you know, I ran a test around my neighborhood and found that its representation in the Google-Mapbase was inaccurate, not up-to-date and incomplete compared to its competitor NAVTEQ. It is my opinion that the numerous stories in the news about mistakes in the Google-Mapbase reflect these same inadequacies.

It is hard to be more specific about the limitations of the Google-Mapbase, since I do not have access to the complete Mapbase dataset. My experience in mapping tells me that Google’s map data likely suffers from incompleteness in terms of the features represented across the map coverage they provide and inconsistency in the attribution of map features within that coverage. Google used imagery from satellites and other aerial platforms to create their geometry layer and conflated other data to their geometry in an attempt to create the attribution necessary for cartographic display and the use the database for purposes of navigation and route guidance.

While conflation can be a useful tool, it is one that produces inconsistency, since these data are collected from variety of sources whose data accuracy specifications and data collection needs (attributes) reflect their objectives in creating the data, but not necessarily those of Google. In effect, the Google-Maps base might look like the distribution of feathers inside of a down comforter, with data globbed-up (it’s a technical term) in some areas and spread very thin in other areas. In addition to the problems of data compatibility exposed by conflation, we need to acknowledge that the sources of the data conflated by Google are spatially disparate, do not produce a uniform quality of data and likely update their data on variable schedules. In other words, I expected the initial Google-Mapbase to be non-homogeneous in terms of accuracy and completeness and it appears to have met this expectation. I am sure that this was what Google expected, although they might not have realized that the initial data quality would be as low as it has been reported.

So, what Google needs to do is to find a method to update their data that will remediate these problems and provide them a better mousetrap than that used by NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas Some would say that they will, also, need to have a better product than Open Street Map. Hmmm.

In order to appreciate Google’s approach to updating the Google-Mapbase, we need to think about the strategy that Google is trying to optimize by creating their own mapping and navigation data. My belief, as stated previously in this blog, is that Google believes that it requires more accurate map and address information in order to be able to deliver customers to its partners who advertise their business or service through the Google Network using the Google AdWords product. In addition, Google is interested in improving the quality of its map database and navigation tools in order to be able to deliver relevant, spatially targeted advertising to people using mobile phones. Google’s Automotive Division will try to expand this sphere of influence to in-car communication systems, while the Google Mothership tries to use these same map and navigation data to geotarget advertising to online users of its browser and other cloud-based products.

These use requirements indicate that the Google-Mapbase needs to include all transportation arteries (higways, county road, streets, etc) mapped correctly (position, classification etc.) and all of the address information describing the location of houses and business along the street face attributed correctly (street name, street addresses, address position, street geography – which neighborhood, city, county, state, country, etc.), including additional attributes defining the businesses along any street segment in terms of name, contact information, business classification and other identifying variables.

Note, that Google’s focus on navigation and route guidance means that it is playing in a different ballpark than OSM. At the present, OSM seems comfortable producing cartographic data for map presentation, but does not compile all of the routing attributes needed to create an industrial quality navigation database capable of providing route guidance. In turn, there is reason to suspect that, at present, the weakest link in the Google-Mapbase is the lack of significant detail describing features and transportation artery attributes that are required to successfully navigate an active vehicle along a path from origin to a destination.

Well, let’s take a look at standard updating practices and see what Google might do to save the day.

Many mapping companies that create purpose built geographical databases (rather than simply re-use those created by others), collect the first compilation of the data based on a clear and unambiguous set of specifications for data accuracy, up-to-dateness and completeness. Data that do not meet the compilation specification are re-collected or prioritized and placed in the update queue depending on the nature of the problem their inaccuracy presents. In addition, companies involved in data collection canvas the world to see if there are any existing data sets that might be adapted to complement their data collection efforts.

While many organizations collect spatial data on a special purpose basis, it is unlikely that any of these entities will collect data that mirrors the specification being used by the company determined to create a navigable database. It is relatively easy to find cartographic data that will allow you to put together a database for purposes of simple mapping, but entirely a different issue to collect spatial data that is attributed in a manner that will allow navigation and route guidance.

Most programs to update the data of critical importance in cartographic and navigation-quality databases are geared to improving data quality based on a practice of systematically working through or “touching” the entire map coverage over some reasonable period of time. Often, this process is based on fully updating large geographical extents each year, progressing towards complete revision of the map database during a three of four year cycle. The effort we are describing here is known as a “planned update cycle.”

Overlaid on top of this stepwise, comprehensive update is an effort that implements various “change detection” measures to prioritize map data changes that dramatically impact product quality, especially in fast growing urban areas. User feedback (usually complaints) form an important part of this activity, but the greatest asset here is the use of current imagery from an aerial platform that can quickly show the synchronization between the imagery and the map database views of the real world.

The next conceptual overlay in the update process is known as “opportunistic updates” that take advantage of the discovery of new or updated collateral data sources that can be used to enhance a “planned update” cycle. Most commonly, this activity results from the discovery of a new data source that operates on a government level, such as a city or a county that has created a GIS databases for planning or development purposes. These data are evaluated for fitness of use and, if qualified, are imported or conflated to a master database that normally contains accurate geometric representation of transportation features in a specific geographic area, but may lack the attribute data as accurate or comprehensive as that available in the new data source.

Companies involved in updating databases used for navigation and route guidance actively work to harmonize these data and success in managing this task often distinguishes the players from the pretenders in the map database world. Harmonization is the database builders attempt of manage data quality to meet specific requirements to qualify the data as fit for specific uses, in this case mapping, navigation and route guidance. Companies that actively work to harmonize their data are attempting to produce “controlled data” that is generally verified by some method of field observation. Geographic data that has been compiled based on external specifications is considered uncontrolled data and its inclusion is a process that results in a hybrid database whose accuracy and harmonization is considered less reliable than that of a controlled database.

NAVTEQ provides the purest, most controlled map and navigation database. TeleAtlas, since it acquisition by TomTom, sits firmly in the hybrid camp, relying on MapShare and probe data for a significant amount of its data validation. Google also falls in the “hybrid” category, but is this category by design and intent. The question that we need to pursue looks like this “Is it possible to manage the data quality of hybrid databases for mapping, navigation and route guidance to meet specific accuracy requirements?”

It is my belief that Google looked at the map data quality provided by its old suppliers NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas and decided that these data did not meet the specific accuracy requirements required by Google for success in its markets. My sources tell me that Google believed that the geographical data supplied to it were out of date, inaccurate, incomplete and inconsistent.

Before NAVTEQ was acquired by Nokia, I analyzed the financial reporting information that they were required to provide as a registered public company, so that I could determine, to the extent possible, their expenditures related to updating their map and navigation database. My calculation was that NAVTEQ may have spent over $300,000,000 in 2007 on updates and database extensions. I was not able to specifically nail down costs, as the expenditures reported in the public documents were not categorized in the same manner over the reporting periods I examined. If my analysis of the NAVTEQ financial data is only directionally correct, it is clear that spending lots of moolah may not be an effective way to improve the quality of map updating.

It is my belief that Google came to believe that the solution to improving the quality of map databases was more related to method than to spending. Further, the method that Google is betting on to produce this improved quality is “collective intelligence”. Yep, Google is betting on the Borg. What is even worse, is that they may be making the right bet.

Well, let’s look at the role of collective intelligence and map updating in the next borg – I mean blog. Just to get you ready for next time, look at this modest update of the map database production cycle. Google is determined to turn this on its head, but supplementing what they are doing with traditional approaches, just in case. Tune in next time for the real expose.

To see a larger version of the image, click here.

We will provide a detailed, but very different model next time.

I know that I promised to share my thoughts on the types of strategies that Google might be using to update their map database of North America. The topic is complex and I have been working my way through several models, but am not yet satisfied with my efforts.

In addition, I have been sluffing around doing the kinds of family things that seem to pop-up at Christmas. Today, however, I was shocked out of my reverie, by an email from my friend Duane Marble that contained a link to an article from PC World Online about the folks that relied on the GPS to get them home to Reno from some place in Oregon, only to wind up lost and imperiled on a snowy, local road. Ok, so now you know – this is a Rant!

The article that brought this on was trivial, but the contributions of the pundits who decided to comment on the blog caused me to seriously consider finding a method to euthanize them. Somehow, without the benefit of formal study, a group of technology experts has evolved who want to tell us how technology works, how maps work and how GPS works, without any of them actually possessing an in-depth understanding of any of the subject matter areas involved in the process.

The first item to catch my eye was by a guy who claimed he used his Droid cell phone for navigation because it would always have new maps and the maps on his Garmin were old. He thought the Droid was a better idea because the cloud would always contain the most up-to-date data. I guess that would be true, but the latest, up-to-date map data does not mean correct, navigable map data that is fit for use in routing engines designed to provide turn-by-turn directions.

Well, the same fellow especially liked his Droid since he could use Google Maps’ Satellite View to see what the route looks like before taking the suggested path.
Apparently he believes that Google has its own satellites that they redirect to take a new photo each time you request a view – especially so you can see if it has snowed. Well, they do, …don’t they?

I guess he probably believes that Google also has its own cellular infrastructure that works anywhere in the world, so that their Droid phones will always be able to access Google to retrieve those new maps and those up-to-the-minute satellite images. In addition, he might even think that Google has launched its own GPS satellites in a larger constellation, with better coverage and stronger signal strength than that provided by the Department of Defense, allowing the $2 high-quality GPS receiver in his phone to unerringly access GPS for PTN calculations (Position, Timing and Navigation).

OK. So none of this is true – no Google satellites, imaging systems or cell network. Instead Dingerbob needs to be told that cell phone reception coverage quality is variable and in some locations non-existent. GPS signals are weak and signal reception can be negatively impacted by weather conditions, foliage, and obstructions to the signals, including topography, among other variables.

Satellite imagery can be more out-of-date than paper maps and in heavily wooded areas you may not even be able to see the roads. While everyone would like to have imagery that reflects leaf-off conditions and clear, cloudless days, there are tons of images that do not meet these conditions. Moreover, you never get a leaf-off conditions in forests composed of evergreens – like those so common in Oregon. Finally, the way that Google and everyone else seam images together, you might not be able to “see” anything on the images and, to add to the problem, the imagery used by Google and Microsoft rarely is properly registered to the geometry of the map bases which they overlay. Can we say “Orthorectified”, Mr. Rogers?

Of course, some of the pundits who responded to the PC World blog clearly thought that the problem in the report was that these two old fogies did not understand the technology and should not have been paying attention to the GPS.

Oh, please! The “You should have known better argument” sounds like the one used by Garmin (whose device was in the car being driven by those who became ”lost”). Quote the Garmin Spokesperson (you can find these comments in a graphic attributed to Garmin on ABC News “…Drivers must always remember that GPS devices provide route suggestions; they do not cause drivers to make driving decisions.” Say what?

Crafted by a lawyer I guess. And, I must agree that neither my TomTom nor my Garmin have ever actually reached out and taken control of my vehicles. To be honest, I had not realized that if my PND told me to turn right at the next corner that, when I arrived at the next corner and made sure that I could turn right (hmm, street is available to the right signal is green, no pedestrians, no obstructions, no vehicles in lane), I should ignore the $300 device and just keep going. Wait, why did I buy a PND? Wasn’t it something about navigation? I suppose Garmin will now be rebranding its products with the tag “GPS – Gets People Somewhere”.

Apparently the spokesperson for Garmin has come up with a new and unique definition of turn-by-turn directions. Read my lips – OK read my writing instead. People buy Personal Navigation Devices to help them navigate roads in areas with which they are unfamiliar. Often, the people who buy PNDs are the same people who are not very good at reading maps, which is exactly why they want a device that can perform map-use functions. If PNDs do not perform a wayfinding function, what possible use do they have in this universe?. Unlike paper maps, they are too rigid to be used as toilet paper and too large to be used as a suppository. Gosh, I think their only use is, now let me get this just right, as a PERSONAL NAVIGATION DEVICE. How quaint. You mean these things are really supposed to work? If that is the case, Garmin’s and TomTom’s stock prices will never recover.

Of course, the Garmin spokesperson may also be the person who supplied the comment in the PC World blog that “GPS Systems are fine. Some people, however, can be really, really, clueless.” Of course. User error! How convenient.

In the formal statement actually made by the Garmin spokesperson, the quote continued “It is the responsibility of drivers to exercise common sense at all times when driving, including deference to the posted road signs and road conditions.” Perhaps the Garmin spokesperson should have added “No, our devices do not work when you need them to do so. We suggest that you throw the friggin thing out the window when it doesn’t work.” Or, perhaps, the spokesperson should have said “Wadda ‘ya expect for 300 bucks, something that works as well as a two-buck map?”

Before all of you go off in the wrong direction (Yuk, yuk – it has taken entirely too long to use that gem in this piece), what we are talking about is “Fitness for Use”. Consumers have a right to expect that devices they buy perform the task that the manufacturer represents it as performing. Companies that create flawed products that don’t deliver the advertised functionality can be sued for non-performance. Better yet, products that fail in their intended operation usually fail in the marketplace.

But enough of my rant. The interesting question is “Why does a PND fail to calculate the correct route?” I think the answer is relatively straightforward and believe that the problems are on the data side more than on the algorithmic or hardware side of the product. My list of Fail Factors, in order of decreasing importance, is as follows:

Map data incomplete
Map data out-of-date
Map data incorrect
Map data ambiguous
Routing algorithm bugs/inefficiencies/tuning
GPS receiver inefficiencies
GPS signal degradation (weather, foliage, obstruction, etc.)
PND hardware design inefficiencies
PND software design inefficienies
User error (always a possibility – rarely the root problem)

If you are a frequent reader of this blog, you know my belief that most navigation problems result from map data that is inadequate for navigation, address finding or the solution of other problems that depend on data related to the position and description of geographical features. That is why creating a viable and effective map updating process is so important.

It is clear that the models used by NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas result in the provisioning of less than satisfactory navigation data. However, before NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas started compiling navigable map databases twenty-five years ago (or so), the situation was even worse. Both NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas have spent a great deal of time thinking about the map update problem and have spent considerable sums of money trying to improve the quality of their map databases. I think they have made great strides towards solving many of the problems that plague compiling accurate and up-to-date navigable map databases.

Google, however, was not satisfied with their efforts and thinks that it may have discovered a better way to improve the quality of these databases. I think Google is headed in the right direction, but anticipate that it does not have the experience to remedy the problems it so freely criticized before it became a producer of navigable map databases. But more about that next time.

My best wishes for a Happy New Year and may next year be your best year ever.

Mike

I was looking around for a good way to start this series, one that would let me provide a little history on map updating and commercial mapping that would help put a context around the next several blogs I have planned. Luckily, someone saved me the trouble – so here we go.

I received an e-mail this morning from Mike Blumenthal on a blog he had written regarding a change he corrected and submitted, which Google corrected in 30 days (an address change). I was reading some of the comments on the article by his readers and one caught my eye. The sentiment expressed was that if people have been living without map updating for years, a few weeks isn’t going to make a big difference. The note concluded that if you don’t like the quality of Google maps, you should tell your readers to use Bing, Yahoo or another provider.

Hope Mike’s reader is not in marketing. Perhaps more importantly, the author of the comment seems oblivious to the fact that the strategy behind Google Maps is not focused on producing map views. Instead, Google switched from its previous suppliers of map data to providing its own Google-base in an attempt to enhance its ability to successfully find real world addresses and correctly map their locations. Finding the “correct” location, is a key indicator of success for Google, as is creating viable routes to these locations for its on-line users or turn-by-turn navigation directions to these locations for users of Android-based smart phones.

While it is true that paper maps were not updated often (perhaps once a year), these maps were not designed to and did not provide either the routing function or the more demanding turn-by-turn navigation function. If you wanted to use paper maps for routing, you had to learn how to read and use maps and then preplan your route, often drawing on top of the map. If you wanted to use your paper map for a navigation function, you had to have someone who could read maps sit in the passenger seat, correctly orient the map and tell you the correct set of maneuvers to reach the destination (although in point of fact, this situation resulted in more divorces than any other cause).

In fact, based on the uses to which maps were put, users of paper maps simply did not demand higher accuracy and more current updates from the map publishers. In turn, paper map publishers did not update their products in a timely manner because the costs of product creation, printing an inventory and distributing that inventory required that the inventory had to be sold through in order to make a profit.

You did notice the word “sold” in the last sentence? Yep, consumers actually had to pay for these maps, even if they were out of date. On the other hand, the paper map did not need batteries and the image was persistent or at least it lasted until the folds wore out, the staples failed, or it blew out your car’s window. The purpose of all of this reminiscing is to indicate that comments about map updating frequency based on presumably outdated media and distribution methods may not be remotely applicable to today’s environment and this notion has a bearing on why Google created the Google-base and promised try to update errors in it within 30 days.

Modern navigable map database suppliers (NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas) have what can be considered a one-item inventory – their Master Database. At present, most database providers distribute copies (sometimes on physical media) of that database to clients who, then, use it to create derivative products wrapped around a core that is the navigable map database.

When Google was using TeleAtlas and Navteq data, it was forced to import data from its suppliers, integrate these data with its mapping platform and then distribute the data on a demand basis to its users. When the data contained errors, Google had to collect the details of the errors, convey the details of the errors to the supplier who would then log the error and research it as part of their company’s normal map updating process. Fixing the errors was at the database producer’s discretion. Sometimes even if fixed, the change may have been entered in the queue to late to be included in the quarterly release.

Managers at Google Maps were quite vocal about their unhappiness with the quality of the map coverage that the company received from its suppliers. One concern was that the navigable map databases were not up-to-date, as many newer (and some older) land developments were not represented in the databases provided by NAVTEQ or TeleAtlas on as timely a basis as Google required. Second, the data from the map suppliers did not meet the quality levels required by Google for its intended applications, as address ranges, the locations of addresses, the locations of street, highways, other roads and Points Of Interest (POI’s) appeared to be erroneous or not in their correct spatial position either in a relative or absolute sense. Next, the data were not uniformly comprehensive, as the quality and number of elements used to describe the mapped data varied across the coverage area. The most problematic issue for Google was the length of time the map providers required to research and correct errors based on the details that were supplied to them by Google.

By producing its own navigable map database, Google has removed the “middleman” from their map creation system. By compiling their own map data from independent sources, Google hopes to improve the accuracy of the data they use for mapping, routing and navigation. In addition, Google hopes to gain an ability to enhance, expand and update their navigable map database in much less time than that taken by their former suppliers.

It is my contention that all suppliers of navigable map database suppliers desire to distribute their database in as close to real-time as possible. Doing so allows them to provide their best quality, most up-to-date map data as soon as is practicable. NAVTEQ, for instance, has long desired to deliver their data over live feeds, rather than by delivering physical media. Even better, NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas might prefer to deliver live routes, rather than databases, just as Google is now doing. While there are many efficiencies to be gained from delivering routes and the associated map, rather than delivering complete databases, the main reason for moving in this direction is to enhance the ability to provide accurate and reliable routing and navigation services that will allow the user to locate and travel to the address to which they desire to travel based on providing directions (routing) or maneuvers (navigation) that are both legal and possible.

In respect to Google, we should reword the statement above into this strategy – To be successful in Local Search advertising Google needs to deliver the potential customers of its advertisers to the physical location of the advertiser so that a transaction can result. If the advertiser’s advertising dollars do not result in sales because the potential customer cannot find the location of the advertiser’s business, then, Google is the partner who will be blamed for this discrepancy. A related factor is that even when there is no advertising/advertiser involved in the local search, if users cannot find businesses that were represented in Google’s index and routed to using Google’s map service, they will have less confidence in Google’s capability as a information provider and potentially consider using other mapping services. While not everyone might be concerned about this potential mismatch, it is the issue that caused Google to dump TeleAtlas and create the Google-base.

It is important to note that in 2008 Google and TeleAtlas signed a five year agreement for TA to supply a navigable map database to Google. Even though Google is now providing its own map navigation data in the United States, it is still paying TeleAtlas and apparently intends to honor its five-year commitment while paying for data it does not use.

The truth of the map licensing market is that neither NAVTEQ nor TeleAtlas has ever made a “living” licensing their data to online providers of mapping and routing. The reason for this is that the cost of collecting, compiling and updating the data contained in their navigable map databases has required significant spending. NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas were built to service the needs of the in-car navigation market, the one that pre-dated PNDs. Indeed, PNDs and online mapping/routing were not part of the original sales strategies of either company, although both of these market segments became important over time.

In turn, the amount that Google paid for its data licenses pales in comparison to what is must have cost to build the Google-base. In my opinion, building and updating a map database is like borrowing money from the broken nosed goon in the bad sports coat – the paybacks just never end.

On the other hand, we all know that Google thought through these issues and still believed that it had found a better way to create and update navigable map databases. So, the question becomes, “Is this a case of new technologies causing great firms to fail (as described in Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma), or has Google missed the mark on this one?” Let’s think about that as we begin to discuss the specifics of map updating.

In my last blog, I wrote about the accuracy of the Google-base in my neighborhood and it appears that Google Maps clearly missed the mark. The comparable map data from NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas were superior to those provided by Google. I suspect this does not come as a surprise to Google and believe that they have problems similar to the ones I reported almost everywhere. However, there the issue of interest to me is “How is Google going to remediate this problem?”

NAVTEQ clearly feels that data mining is a great way to build a database, but also believes that you need to have research teams in the field, if you want to build an accurate and reliable database. TeleAtlas also believes in the efficiency of data mining, but believes that probe data (data from GPS units that records the paths users take while driving motor vehicles) and other User Generated Content can help to increase the accuracy of their database while decreasing the expense of field research. And Google? Well, I’ll spend the next couple of blogs diagramming what I think they are doing in map updating. Hopefully, I’ll have some diagrams of how the process works ready for next time.

By the way, it appears that several VC’s are thinking about funding companies who could become the next NAVTEQ or TeleAtlas. Better point them at my next few blogs before they invest your hard earned dollars.