Google Maps or Microsoft Maps

I must admit the new 3D maps of Manhattan are impressive.

Unfortunately, I believe most people prefer the easier to use Google Maps.

Which do you prefer?

Google Map here.

Local Live Map here.


I hope the Local Live name is dropped.
I prefer the easier to explain Microsoft Maps.

GIS software/web applications in order of best to worst for my uses:

Microsoft MapPoint
Local Live
NASA WorldWind
Garmin MapSource
Google Maps

Live Maps looks a lot nicer, but Google Maps is a lot more straightforward. I like that Google only has one text box and I find Live's Welcome pane to be pretty obnoxious (celebrity search? who cares). The interface to Google's street-level maps is also much nicer (creepiness factor aside); Microsoft got there first but then just kinda failed to see it through.

I typically use maps.live.com, but if I'm getting directions to a place I don't know, I'll check both to see if they agree.

Directions wise, live seems to give more sensible routes, and they are easier to follow to boot. the drawign features are better too - it telsl you how long the lines you draw are, or the area of the shape.

Also they have high res pictures of where I live while googles are blurry to this day.

Unfortunatley the blocking policy here allows *.google.com but blocks *.live.com

It's quite simple; as long as Google Maps leads the way in hi-res imagery for non-US locations, I will use Google Maps.

Rowan wrote:

Google has more recent photos in my general area, and it doesn't use yards as a unit of measurement. I don't know how big a yard is, and I don't want to find out.

Hmm...

Google has more recent photos in my general area (and higher res), and it doesn't use yards as a unit of measurement. I don't know how big a yard is, and I don't want to find out.

But anyway, I think they're both decent tools.

Sven Groot wrote:



Rowan wrote: Google has more recent photos in my general area, and it doesn't use yards as a unit of measurement. I don't know how big a yard is, and I don't want to find out.

Hmm...

So basically it's roughly a metre. Which begs the question, why not use metres? As far as I'm aware the metric system is more wide spread than the imperial system, oh and it makes sense too.

I do like the traffic information provided by maps.live.com.  When I was a traveling consultant, it was invaluable for knowing when I should leave for the airport.  I don't see it on google's directions.  All I know is that I knew I had to check I-495 and I-90 early on to make sure I wouldn't miss my flight.

Edit:
Actually, google does have traffic info.  You have to toggle it on.  Duh.  I'm an idiot.

i use multimap

Sven Groot wrote:

It's quite simple; as long as Google Maps leads the way in hi-res imagery for non-US locations, I will use Google Maps.

Agreed. Though I fear that this'll spark another "US-globe" rant by a certain person, I find that Live's detailed info is mainly focused on US locations, where Google has a lot more detailed maps and information elsewhere in the world.

I really would use Google maps, since its interface is faster but unfortunately I feel like an idiot while trying to do very easy things.

Example, can somebody tell me how to do this with google maps:

- zoom to a place without searching for an exact address
- get directions from that place

I can do this just adding a placemark and I have to be logged in to do that... frustrating. This is so easy on Live Local (it's a right click away).

the_sombrero_kid: multiset;)

blowdart wrote:



Bas wrote:  Agreed. Though I fear that this'll spark another "US-globe" rant by a certain person, I find that Live's detailed info is mainly focused on US locations, where Google has a lot more detailed maps and information elsewhere in the world.

MS Maps have a decent street level shot of my house.

As I said - live.com has much better images of my house - and in fact my whole city and surrounding area - than google does. Your mileage may vary - but the point being, its not simply a case of Google have better images outside the USA.

Tensor wrote:



blowdart wrote:  Bas wrote:  Agreed. Though I fear that this'll spark another "US-globe" rant by a certain person, I find that Live's detailed info is mainly focused on US locations, where Google has a lot more detailed maps and information elsewhere in the world. MS Maps have a decent street level shot of my house.

As I said - live.com has much better images of my house - and in fact my whole city and surrounding area - than google does. Your mileage may vary - but the point being, its not simply a case of Google have better images outside the USA.

Live Local has no detailed images of the Netherlands at all. Google Maps has the whole country at street level. Live Local has most of Tokyo in high detail, but Google Maps still has more by far and outside of Tokyo Google Maps wins hands down.

Google Maps is also much more accurate when searching for addresses (Japanese street addresses don't appear to work at all for Live Local).

I realise that there -are- detailed images of non-US parts of the world on Live Local. The point is that there are far less of them than on Google Maps. As far as I can tell, Live Local is up to Google Maps' level when it comes to the US, but lagging far behind when it comes to the rest of the world.

blowdart wrote:



Sven Groot wrote: Live Local has no detailed images of the Netherlands at all.

Huh, all you need are 3 images, repeating;

• flat, with canal.
• flat with tulips.
• flat with water barrier (because the real word gets filtered)

Exactly. And imagine how simple it would be to create a Virtual Earth 3D model for the entire country. You'd need exactly two polygons in a single plane. But no!