Why I do not believe in 3D maps
At the end of May, Apple announced 3d-cards in iOS 6; At the beginning of June, Google also presented its 3d maps . Obviously, we are watching the new stage of the battle for card users on the web.
There is, however, a small question: do users really need this very three-dimensionality? Will the presence of a 3d killer feature map services?
It seems to me that no.
')
What is a geographical map? This is a scheme , conditional image of the area. What is its meaning? To orient the user on a medium and large scale (from the area of ​​the city and above).
The map does not solve (or badly solves) the problem of orientation in the street-house scale: for this purpose StreetView, augmented reality, pseudo-3d in navigators are just invented. “Failing” into the panorama of the streets, determining the user's position and driving along the route - this is exactly the must have for map services, since the map does not solve the problem “where am I now and which way I look”.
On the other hand, StreetView cannot solve the problem of determining “where is the nearest (metro station | gas station | beach)” or “how do I (go to the library | leave the city | see the sights)”.
The realistic image of the terrain cannot solve these cases simply because it contains too much information and, by and large, gives almost nothing new compared to what the user already sees with his own eyes. Ok, the 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 help in finding restaurants in the area and figuring out where to go - for this you need a scheme.
A map is essentially an infographic of a district. This is by no means a realistic image of the terrain - it is an informative terrain map .
Now, along with panoramas and augmented reality, 3d appears. Can he replace one of the two cases of using cards - 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. A 3d map of the same quality will require at times more traffic, and from a purely utilitarian point of view it will be no better than ordinary panoramas. Not to mention the fact that doing 3d-maps is much more expensive, and, therefore, they will be updated less often StreetView.
On the scale of the district / city, 3d maps are completely useless - in fact, just like satellite imagery. They drastically reduce the readability of the scheme, without offering any buns in return.
Perhaps 3d-cards can be built somewhere between these two cases? But how? An ideal map 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 infographic of the area, and a sufficient number of signs about the user's local environment.
So, it seems to me, the lot of 3d in the maps is a short-term wow effect, about the same as from satellite imagery - “wow, my house! wow, the 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 at all against 3D technology as technology; in fact, it is more expensive and traffic-intensive.
And, of course, I don’t feel sorry for Apple and Google money, let them spend what they want. However, it seems to me that in this case we are dealing with a purely marketing desire to squeeze out local competitors who stupidly cannot afford to invest so much money in cards. That is why Apple and Google are promoting this (a) not new, (b) useless toy with such fanaticism.
There is, however, a small question: do users really need this very three-dimensionality? Will the presence of a 3d killer feature map services?
It seems to me that no.
')
What is a geographical map? This is a scheme , conditional image of the area. What is its meaning? To orient the user on a medium and large scale (from the area of ​​the city and above).
The map does not solve (or badly solves) the problem of orientation in the street-house scale: for this purpose StreetView, augmented reality, pseudo-3d in navigators are just invented. “Failing” into the panorama of the streets, determining the user's position and driving along the route - this is exactly the must have for map services, since the map does not solve the problem “where am I now and which way I look”.
On the other hand, StreetView cannot solve the problem of determining “where is the nearest (metro station | gas station | beach)” or “how do I (go to the library | leave the city | see the sights)”.
The realistic image of the terrain cannot solve these cases simply because it contains too much information and, by and large, gives almost nothing new compared to what the user already sees with his own eyes. Ok, the 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 help in finding restaurants in the area and figuring out where to go - for this you need a scheme.
A map is essentially an infographic of a district. This is by no means a realistic image of the terrain - it is an informative terrain map .
Now, along with panoramas and augmented reality, 3d appears. Can he replace one of the two cases of using cards - 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. A 3d map of the same quality will require at times more traffic, and from a purely utilitarian point of view it will be no better than ordinary panoramas. Not to mention the fact that doing 3d-maps is much more expensive, and, therefore, they will be updated less often StreetView.
On the scale of the district / city, 3d maps are completely useless - in fact, just like satellite imagery. They drastically reduce the readability of the scheme, without offering any buns in return.
Perhaps 3d-cards can be built somewhere between these two cases? But how? An ideal map 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 infographic of the area, and a sufficient number of signs about the user's local environment.
So, it seems to me, the lot of 3d in the maps is a short-term wow effect, about the same as from satellite imagery - “wow, my house! wow, the 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 at all against 3D technology as technology; in fact, it is more expensive and traffic-intensive.
And, of course, I don’t feel sorry for Apple and Google money, let them spend what they want. However, it seems to me that in this case we are dealing with a purely marketing desire to squeeze out local competitors who stupidly cannot afford to invest so much money in cards. That is why Apple and Google are promoting this (a) not new, (b) useless toy with such fanaticism.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/146037/
All Articles