back to article Streetmap loses appeal against Google Maps dominance judgement

Streetmap has lost its application to appeal against last year’s High Court judgement that Google did nothing wrong by promoting its own Maps product above Streetmap’s. “The bully boys won the day,” said Streetmap, immediately after the judgement was delivered. “This is a sad day for the internet.” Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, …

  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    For maps of Great Britain Streetmap is what I always recommend. Google may have satellite imagery but for anyone able to read maps Streetmap gives a much better view of the lie of the land. I usually prefer its placename search although it does have a few quirks. It's a great pity it doesn't extend into Ireland, not even N Ireland.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It depends what you want. If you want a specialised A-to-Z style road map then Streetmap is definitely the one to go for. For general purpose mapping, including satellite overlays, then Google Maps is better. Personally I think it would be a bit daft if a road map was presented as part of a general search in preference to a general purpose one, unless the user had specified that in the search term.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "f you want a specialised A-to-Z style road map then Streetmap is definitely the one to go for. For general purpose mapping, including satellite overlays, then Google Maps is better."

        Specialised A-Z mapping doesn't have contour mapping. Streetmap has the OS maps. Maybe you were just looking at the name.

    2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Exactly. Streetmap compete and win on quality. They have actual real proper maps, not the crayoned mess that is Google Maps.

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Don't be silly. OSM may be better (though I think it's quite subjective) but GM are clearly quite good by objective standards for most use-cases.

        1. find users who cut cat tail

          > GM are clearly quite good by objective standards for most use-cases.

          I doubt you have ever seen a good map.

          A typical non-city-centre area:

          GM -- some rough grey and green polygons, streams, a couple of roads. Useless.

          OSM -- more or less the same as GM plus vegetation type, protected localities, much more roads and paths, some points of interest. Possibly usable, but it depends.

 (our national competitor) -- more or less the same as OSM plus contour lines, marked tourist and cycling paths, nature trails, spot heights, rocks, dozens of points of interests, many more small paths, local names, springs, shelters, caves, monuments, every bloody cross beside the road, ... So people actually use it as an outdoor map.

          In city centres GM is better, but then again OSM becomes much better there. For example, GM does not bother to show paths in parks, except the largest ones.

          Also, GM is slow as hell. Objectively.

          1. find users who cut cat tail

            Nice to see the downvotes coming... I understood you are enraged if you realised your map options are all crap compared to what people in a puny East European country enjoy. It is hardly my fault but... Whatever. Be enraged if it helps. You cannot take our superior map service from me.

            1. streaky

              Nice to see the downvotes coming... I understood you are enraged if you realised your map options are all crap compared to what people in a puny East European country enjoy. It is hardly my fault but... Whatever. Be enraged if it helps. You cannot take our superior map service from me.

              Get over yourself it's just openstreemap's data rebranded.

        2. Gotno iShit Wantno iShit

          @JDX & others

          This is about not

      2. Captain Boing

        what a stupid, identi-kit slap at big corp. - GM is far from a "crayoned mess" ya goit!

        People vote with their feet, if GM wasn't fit, no-one would use it and it would die. Everyone slags off starbucks for the same reason - fact: Their coffee is good and appeals to a LOT of people.

        GM is the same. I prefer their clean looking profile over Streetmaps dated A-Z look. If I need more streets go to the OS Explorer maps and the times I have used streetview to scope out a destination so i actually know what i am looking for when i get there is a great use of tech... I know that google are not doing this out of some altruistic ethos... in the same way i know TV programs are just something t keep me hooked in-between advert breaks.

        Google got big because they are good at what they do. You might not like what they do (they are very creepy) but to keep us hooked they provide some nice trinkets.

        I am not saying they would not exploit their position to further their own cause - just like vauxhall or ford recommending their own parts when you get your car serviced. It happens all the time.

      3. Captain Boing

        @ J.G.Harston

        Just noticed - you have a history of slagging off google maps here. Bet you are a fanboi

    3. Roland6 Silver badge

      >For maps of Great Britain Streetmap is what I always recommend.

      I know it isn't fashionable around here but....

      Bing offers OS maps - change the default display format from 'Road' to 'Ordnance survey'.

      It's about the only thing I use Bing for...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I did hear that someone was using Bing. Welcome.

    4. Planty Bronze badge

      This is a great day for the internet, the better, more useful product appeared higher up in the search results. The fact is was a search company that provided the search and the maps, that's totally irreverent. If the product is better, then it deserves to be higher ranked.

      If I search for an Office Suite, Office365 is way higher than Google Docs...

    5. Oh Homer

      Monopoly abuse

      In my opinion, to be accurately characterised as "monopoly abuse", there must be third party collusion. The idea that merely favouring your own products on your own service is somehow an "abuse" is ridiculous. Google favouring Google Maps on Google Search is no less than I'd expect. If Streetmap wants preferential treatment then it needs to run its own competing service to Google Search, but demanding that a competitor favour your product over their own, or even give it equal consideration, is just silly.

      Actual abuse would be, for example, contractually forcing third party OEMs to exclude competing operating systems, as Microsoft did. Whereas OS vendors have no reasonable expectation of Microsoft promoting competing operating systems, they do have the reasonable expectation that companies entirely unconnected to Microsoft don't exclude them at the behest of another competitor.

      That's the difference between mere dominance and actual abuse.

    6. streaky

      Streetmap has nice maps (they're Ordnance Survey maps so no shit..) - but the UI is bad and always has been (swear it hasn't been updated since the 90's, you can do better pulling map serving code Open Source off the shelf for gratis) and the data contained within the maps is badly digitised (or rather completely lacks it excepting advertising). Only sensible alternative to google maps is Open Streetmap where satellite imagery isn't a thing - the maps are of high quality, cover the planet (well, y'know) and all the data is very well digitised.

      The idea that merely favouring your own products on your own service is somehow an "abuse" is ridiculous

      Microsoft and Apple will be pleased to hear it, and they thank you for your service.

  2. hplasm

    The bitter taste-

    -of sour grapes. 2/10 try harder next time...

    Confucius says: Man who rest on laurels gets twigs up bum.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: The bitter taste-

      How do you think Chrome got where it is today?

      Yes, by being pushed by the search engine.

      1. Daggerchild Silver badge

        Re: The bitter taste-

        No. Chrome is actually decent. You can't simply pretend it isn't.

        I say this while typing in a Firefox I'll have to eventually restart due to ever increasing hitching caused by memory management issues they still haven't sorted out, which is currently eating 8Gb of VM.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: The bitter taste-

          You are definitely doing something wrong. Probably some add-on.

          Link and link, both from December. Firefox uses less memory than Chrome.

          1. Updraft102

            Re: The bitter taste-

            At first FF uses less memory than Chrome, sure. Give it some time, open and close a lot of tabs, and it grows... and grows... and grows. I've never used Chrome, so I can't say if it does it too, but it's been a normal part of FF for as long as I can remember.

          2. Daggerchild Silver badge

            Re: The bitter taste-

            "Firefox uses less memory than Chrome"

            It's not that that actually gets in my face - I installed more memory in this machine just to make my multiple firefoxes with different profiles, each with many many tabs, usable for more than a couple of hours.

            The problem is the hitching. Every couple of se... conds it doing which can to...tally ruin your, scrolling, and means clicks m...ay not go where you thought.

            Amusingly, one of the things that used to *seriously* hitch the browser were those HP countdown adverts in the Reg sidebars :) I'd had to delete the ad's node if I wanted to scroll smoothly.

            When I dug into the issue it only affects people like me who have a squillion active tabs for very long periods of time. It's something to do with the structure it uses to track objects getting unbalanced because of something they didn't realise they should have been tracking to keep it in balance. A firefox engineer going "Oh. Hrm. Hrrrrrrrrm. Ew." was where I saw the bug investigation last.

        2. paulf

          Re: The bitter taste-

          @Daggerchild "I say this while typing in a Firefox I'll have to eventually restart due to ever increasing hitching caused by memory management issues they still haven't sorted out, which is currently eating 8Gb of VM."

          I have used FF since the 0.9 beta (I think) and prefer it (FF works well with ABP while Chrome has the blanket Google tracking plus the new creepy Bluetooth APIs) but you're right on memory. My home FF installation regularly gets to 4GB now making it slow to a crawl until I restart it. It's improved in the last couple of versions but still not where it should be.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just say no to Google

    No more spying on you

    No more adverts about stuff you don't want

    No more adverts for places you have just left.

    Oh bliss.

    And you are not the product.

    1. AMBxx Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Just say no to Google

      Sadly, can't even do that properly - they use Google Analytics!

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      @AC Re: Just say no to Google

      Just say no to Google?


      Its much harder than you think.

      To prove it... if you run NoScript, take a look at what scripts every site you visit have in common. They all have Google Analytics.

      Why doesn't El Reg remove this script? They have Alasdair Dobbs who could probably cobble up their own analytics package and keep their site stats in house. So why don't they do this?

      In fact why doesn't any of the other commercial sites do this?

      That would be a very good article for any tech magazine to write.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: @AC Just say no to Google

        Because then they'd have to pay Dabbs (I assume you mean) to put in the hours for development (lets say 120 hours at 100 GBP/hour = 12.000 GBP. And 3 weeks is probably a MASSIVE underestimate). Instead they can also grab an off the shelf product already fully developed that doesn't even need extra resources to run and costs "nothing" (to them atleast). Gee, I wonder why they choose to use Google Analytics...

        --> I doubt Dabbsy would work for just a few of these -->

        1. AMBxx Silver badge

          Re: @AC Just say no to Google

          I wonder what proportion of Register readers block Google Analytics? At what point is it worth writing your own that's less likely to be blocked?

      2. stu 4

        Re: @AC Just say no to Google

        not really - ghostery removes all tracking scripts for me.

        adblock removes all ads.

        startpage provides a great search.

        bing or streetmap when I need maps.

        So really not hard at all imho.

  4. adam payne

    “Google denied it was dominant in the online search market,” said Lord Justice Jones


    1. Alister

      Google denied it was dominant in the online search market,” said Lord Justice Jones.

      Either that's a typo, or Google should be prosecuted for contempt, how can they possibly justify that?

    2. Rikkeh

      Yes they did. But this trial wasn't about that.

      Abuse of dominance requires two elements: dominance and abuse. Both sides accepted having the Court decide first whether or not Google's behaviour was abusive. Given that the Court (rightly, I think) determined that the behaviour wasn't abusive, there was no need to decide whether or not Google was dominant.

      Given that (because the Court found there was no abuse) Streetmap would've have still lost regardless of the finding (or not) of dominance. It would've therefore likely been on the hook for the costs incurred in all the argument about Google's dominance whether or not it had won on dominance. So you can see why Streetmap accepted the splitting off of the abuse point to be decided as a preliminary issue to the main trial.

    3. Anonymous Coward

      That's why QCs cost so much

      I couldn't tell that lie with a straight face, nor would I have the bare -faced effrontery to think I could get away with it.

  5. disco_stu

    I just had a look at the Streetmaps page, looks like it hasn't evolved for about 10 years.

    When you do zoom into the maps they are better than the Google maps, for example better use of colours for different road types but lack of scroll wheel zoom, the small mapping window are something that should have been ditched as soon as Google Maps came out.

    1. mdava

      I just had a look at the Streetmaps page, looks like it hasn't evolved for about 10 years.

      I agree entirely. There are some things to like about Streetmap (and I used to use it back in the day before Google started doing maps) but overall Google Maps is in a completely different league.

      1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        but overall Google Maps is in a completely different league

        Yes, the Crown Paints Conference League.

    2. Les Matthew

      "lack of scroll wheel zoom"

      Works for me in Pale Moon.

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Has everyone forgotten? - Google maps do THREE - FRICKEN - D !

        I dont care how much prettier your OS road colour scheme is - turning satellite pictures into a useable 3d view is sufficiently close to magic for me!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Has everyone forgotten? - Google maps do THREE - FRICKEN - D !

          Yes. And now you've reminded us, we can all forget again.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "I just had a look at the Streetmaps page, looks like it hasn't evolved for about 10 years."

      I also agree with your post. Most of my requirements for mapping are when I'm out and about, which means a 5" phone screen or an 11" netbook, neither of which work well with Streepmaps clunky 1990's thick borders interface. The maps are nice, but I have a problem with where I live. Streemaps says my street doesn't exist, ie "not found" in a search using "street name, town". Google maps doesn't show the street name, but a search does actually return a correct result and put the marker in the right place. Both work with a postcode, but that's not really the point, is it Is it a new build, I hear you ask? Depends on your perspective I suppose. The street's only been around since about 1890!

      For the last 25 years, the actual named street has been pedestrianised and Streetmap clearly shows it as an unnamed footpath while Google maps shows the houses and nondescript grey "blankness" where the road used to be.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I use a number of mapping service quite often. Streetmap is the only one of the big ones that accepts OS grid references (and it can display on an OS 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 map). Other than that it doesn't provide much, no directions, no satellite imagery, it hasn't really moved on in 10 years of using it.

    Here maps gives has many of the same features as Google maps but has much more up to date satellite imagery for many places that I look at and has a great offline app mapping app for Android.

    Overall Google gets my vote, even though its satellite imagery is often extremely out of date 10 years+ old., and it doesn't recognise grid refs. It has a good terrain, 3d view, the 3d buildings look great, directions and traffic information seems to be some of the best in my area (better than Waze, but doesn't have the real-time alerts of Waze). However it is becoming impossible to get get updates approved on map maker so a lot of data is getting stale.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I think you'll find the traffic information on Google Maps is lifted straight from Waze"

        Not sure it is. Alerts are sometimes lifted from Waze, however traffic information has been in Google maps for a lot longer than Waze. Google looks at traffic speeds based upon users continuously and therefore most of the time it will show me traffic flows that are fairly accurate. Waze seems to rely on the user reporting traffic issues and therefore, at least in most areas where I am, is less accurate, mostly showing free flowing traffic. When you alert with Waze it just marks between you and the next junction, so you have to keep adding alerts as you progress.

        I generally use Waze for my daily commute (for speed cameras and to alert others), but I'll check Google for traffic before I leave and if I hit traffic, to see how long I'm likely to be stuck in it.

        1. ChrisC Silver badge

          Going slightly off-topic here, but as Waze is something I have a particular interest in...

          The Google buy-out of Waze was done in a way that maintained an arms-length seperation between the two companies. Other than the occasional traffic/incident alert appearing in Google Maps tagged with Waze as its source, and the slightly better integration of some Google products within the Waze environment, the two pretty much run independently of one another.

          So yes, Google generate their own realtime traffic flow data via a combination of third party feeds where available, plus the location data returned from Android phones where such data hasn't been switched off by the user - its this latter data which gives Google Maps such good quality traffic flow data on side roads where the likes of Trafficmaster et al pay no attention.

          However, Waze do pretty much the exact same thing. Every phone running the Waze app is sending back realtime data to the Waze servers, allowing them to build up the same sort of dynamic traffic flow picture as Google have. The main difference between Waze and Google here is that in the Waze app, traffic is generally only highlighted if it's moving slower than usual for that section of road at that time of day, so if Waze is showing no traffic highlights it doesn't mean the road ahead is clear, it only means the road ahead is flowing at least as well as Waze knows it usually flows. It could be completely stationary, but if that's normal for the time of day then it won't warrant a highlight...

          Not the most human-friendly bit of UI design (something I've mentioned to the Waze devs on more than one occasion over the years), but from the perspective of the routing algorithms it does make sense, and if you're using Waze as the devs intend it to be used (i.e. always following a suggested route) then you do start to learn to trust that it's already taken all of the traffic it's aware of into account when deciding which route to offer you, and that if it still ends up directing you into the mother and father of all jams that wasn't shown onscreen then it's more likely that it really was the least worst option available, as opposed to it doing so because it really had no idea the jam was there.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          You're absolutely right - Google offered traffic flow information prior to buying Waze based on the relative speeds of any handsets running maps that were travelling on that road.

          It was on far fewer roads back then, it now even offers to tell me what the traffic is like on a local road that's little more than a rutted track. I presume a farmer drives down there with Google Maps running in the background every so often.

          1. AmenFromMars

            "You're absolutely right - Google offered traffic flow information prior to buying Waze based on the relative speeds of any handsets running maps that were travelling on that road."

            Are you sure? I think you'll find the mobile phone companies sell anonymised location data of all mobile phones which is why their traffic info is so good.

            Anyone remember Multimap?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Yup, I'm sure.

              Carrier data is all about the servers you connect to ("Someone who shopped on Ocado also drives an Audi, so let's target Audi dealerships with Ocado offers" etc), the areas you've been, number of social media sites you connect to etc.

              The location data isn't good enough to drive traffic maps, since it's working from cell towers. Your phone is not constantly sending fine detail location back to your carrier. Google Maps updates every 30s or so, and can tell you whether a traffic jam starts one side of a junction or the other - that ain't cell tower info.

    2. mdava

      ... even though its satellite imagery is often extremely out of date 10 years+ old.

      I love this comment (to be clear I'm not disputing it or mocking the AC) but isn't it incredible that we can see unbelievably detailed imagery of essentially every single place in the world, zoom in and out, see changes over decades, Street View for ground level view etc etc?

      My mum can remember the first radio that her parents bought!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        google maps and streetview

        Are so out of date where I live it is a joke.

        There are whole main roads missing from the maps.

        Road numbers are wrong even down to thinking that a 'C' class road is an 'A' class.

        It is any wonder that HGV's come past my house and get stuck. The Rat run was sealed off 12+ years ago.

        Yet still they keep on coming.

        As for Streetview, it shows a car in my drive that I sold in 2010.

        Next door does not even exist (built in 2012).

        Streetmap shows the rat run as it is now, a dead end.


        1. Stevie

          Re: google maps and streetview are so out of date

          Did you report this to Google to see if they would fix it?

          My mantra at work: I can't fix what I don't know is broke.

          1. Gene Cash Silver badge

            Re: google maps and streetview are so out of date

            > Did you report this to Google to see if they would fix it?

            I've tried reporting map inaccuracies 9 times. 5 times it was rejected out of hand, no reason given. 4 times they asked for "proof" - They apparently didn't consider (for example) a picture of the business being bulldozed as proof it was permanently closed. Or a picture of an official "road closed" sign including the name of the road.

            So now I've pulled a 180 and give bullshit answers to their stupid "local expert" questions that pop up all the time now.

      2. ChrisC Silver badge

        I still remember the day someone at work discovered the terraserver site (around 1999-2000 IIRC) and the whole R&D team stopped work for about an hour as we all crowded round their PC looking at the fairly low-res black&white imagery available around Slough (no jokes please, it might not have been the most salubrious of places to live, but the sheer number of companies based there made it a damn good place to kick off my engineering career).

        17 years later, and I find myself grumbling if the aerial imagery in Google Maps is more than a couple of years old, under/over exposed, or just slightly too blurry to be able to see the road markings clearly... how quickly we forget just how much of a revolution it is to freely have access to this (and so much more) data at our fingertips 24/7.

      3. VulcanV5

        And I'll raise you . . .

        My grandmother could remember her parents' first wireless.

    3. ChrisC Silver badge

      "(and it can display on an OS 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 map)"

      As can Bing Maps, with a rather more user-friendly UI... As with several other commenters, I was a big user of Streetmap back in the days when it was *the* go-to site for free detailed maps of the UK, but they've done themselves no favours at all by clinging onto their old-school UI design long after it ought to have been put out to pasture.

    4. heyrick Silver badge

      "even though its satellite imagery is often extremely out of date 10 years+ old"

      Does Google make its own imagery? Ours, currently, is from last May. I can tell by the position of things and that it was taken in the two day period between the early harvest and the maize being sown...

    5. Cuddles

      It's not satellites

      "Overall Google gets my vote, even though its satellite imagery is often extremely out of date 10 years+ old

      It's satellite imagery is usually very up to date, within a few months or so. What you're complaining about is the aerial photography which shows the much higher zoom levels where individual roads and buildings, and even cars and people, are visible. Satellites are easy, they just sit way up in the sky and constantly take pictures of the whole world every few days. Constantly chartering flights to photograph every inch of every country every few weeks is different matter entirely, and is not something anyone is willing to pay to do.

      As for Streetmap, the problem is that, as others have noted already, the maps might be decent but the interface is a decade or so out of date. And since the maps aren't actually theirs but are just OS maps, they're not giving people any reason to care about them - there are plenty of other places you can get OS maps. And that's a large part of why this lawsuit was rather pointless - even if it was ruled that Google was abusing its dominance, Streetmap wouldn't gain any advantage because Google would be forced to open things up to all their competitors, not just one of them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's not satellites

        "It's satellite imagery is usually very up to date, within a few months or so. What you're complaining about is the aerial photography which shows the much higher zoom levels where individual roads and buildings, and even cars and people, are visible."

        Satellite view is the term Google use (although on desktop they now call it Earth). However your statement is not correct. The aerial photography is now used when you zoom right out to whole states or countries and is blended with satellite views for areas that aren't covered (such as the sea).

        Try it, find some cloud on an aerial view and zoom out, you have to go a long way before the same cloud is not showing.

  7. Stryker007

    best tool for the job

    Thank god they lost, I love google maps and I'm more than happy that it appears at the top of the search results

  8. Valeyard

    pre-installed software

    Microsoft must be looking at cases like this and wonder why they were allowed to bundle internet explorer when google bundles EVERYTHING with android

    the only different is that at least with google apps the lack of privacy is intended

    1. Updraft102

      Re: pre-installed software

      The problem with MS was not just that they bundled IE with every Windows computer. It was that MS demanded that the OEMs sell their PCs with no browser other than IE installed. If they refused to comply, MS would simply refuse to sell them Windows licenses for their new PCs. How many PCs would they manage to sell without Windows? They had no choice but to comply.

  9. davidp231

    I prefer HERE maps personally. Especially on my droid.

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      I used to use HERE maps, as it worked offline before Google Maps had an official offline system.

      I got tired of the cartoon interface and general lack of important detail.

    2. nkuk

      I tried to use HERE maps once, it was absolutely absmal. The maps were years out of date, I was driving on roads and going through roundabouts that didn't exist on HERE maps, and in places where there were roads, the GPS didn't lock on to them, it showed me driving on the grass verges at the side of the road rather than locking on to the road in the UI. It was almost unfit for purpose.

  10. MJI Silver badge

    Tool for the job

    Google can do a route on a URL, but its street maps are difficult to read (grey on grey) have OS overlays, but search broken.

    Streetmap can do OS references but positioning is slightly out

    Anyway I have reported the broken search on, Google requires signing in.

    No mapping site is that good, and all have some serious flaws.

    1. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: Tool for the job

      apparently that extra washed out light grey on white background for Google maps is deliberate and not a fault of my monitor.

      Personally speaking, I'd have the person who approved that change shot for crimes as map-making and pour encourage les autres

      HERE know how to show a map.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Tool for the job

        I actually avoid Google maps for town usage as I cannot work out what is what on a LCD monitor, all grey on grey.

        Definately need shooting.

      2. cd

        Re: Tool for the job

        On a desktop, HERE blocks more of the map than the others with useless panes. And pops up a window in front of the last part that was visible with a query about whether I'd recommend HERE to friends. Useful for expressing my exasperation at their UI failures in light of how they would otherwise be a good choice.

        The solution streetmap might have tried for in their suit is the one already used on DuckDuckGo. Type in a place and add the word map to the end, it pops up a map the pointer of which has a dropdown menu so you can go to that locale in GM, HERE, Bing, etc. Or click the arrow and it will use your last choice of vendor. The DDG map is somewhat content-redacted, but sometimes good enough for something simple like where a town generally located.

  11. Philip Storry

    They failed to keep up. It's that simple.

    I use Google Maps as my primary mapping service. Have done for years. Streetmap's data was better, but they stayed static for far too long.

    I just visited Streetmap to see how they were doing, and they have a bigger mapping window now - but not big enough when you compare to Google Maps or OpenStreetMap. I was pleased to see that they did support grab-scrolling, but disappointed to see that scroll wheel zoom didn't work - it just moved the whole page.

    Basically, they haven't kept up. Google's mapping data is good enough, and they just keep adding features. Their integration with their search is superb, they've added directions, street view, live traffic reporting...

    Anecdote time: I don't drive but was on a trip with friends recently (to a distillery, so why drive?) and on the way back we hit a traffic jam. My phone alerted me that it was roadworks, and with some judicious scrolling and checking the live traffic overlay on my phone I managed to locate exactly where they were, which seemed to help us all to stay more sanguine about the experience.

    Frankly, if I'd had the presence of mind to check my phone beforehand, Google Maps could probably have saved us some time by getting us a route that avoided those delays!

    And I said that Streetmap's data was better, but that past tense is deliberate. It's missing some paths in local parks. Not new paths either, but ones decades old. Google was missing them a few years ago but is slowly adding them in. OSM has had those right for ages.

    Finally, let's not mention the woeful search. Both Google and OSM could get me to a local park by name, Streetmap couldn't manage it no matter which option I picked. And it's 2017 - why do I have to pick a search option? Search them all, then show me a list!

    I have fond memories of printing out an occasional Streetmap page back in the early 2000's. Before phones had mapping and internet connections, A Streetmap printout was more convenient than carrying an A-Z around, providing your journey was short. But they have more competition than just map books, and they seem to have failed to realise that.

  12. Valerion

    What Google could have done

    Is just start using Streetmap for their mapping after all. Streetmap's servers would have melted within about 30 minutes of handling their level of traffic, and that's the problem solved.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The answer is for .gov to force google to allow people to select other providers for various services. For example select Streetmap as you map provider in your google settings. Then whenever you search for a place it can give you a link to Streetmap.

    That's the only sensible solution to the Google Uber Alles problem.

  14. JDX Gold badge

    Interesting one

    While I think Google are using their search dominance to push their maps - which is rather the definition of monopoly foul play - the fact is that integrating their mapping product into search results is really bloody useful for the typical end user.

    Now I suppose if they were forced to provide a setting "choose my maps provider" that would be good for all sides but forcing them to do the development work is a little unfair. Tricky.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My word, the Streetmap site is awful.

    It looks like it was designed in the 90s by a Computer Science student, the homepage just sits in the leftmost 50% of my browser with no attempt made to respond to screen size.

    And then I searched for "Slough" and the first one offered is in Devon. Now I know it didn't ask to use my location data, but I'd hazard Slough, Berkshire is searched for more frequently than Slough, Devon. But even the Berkshire one is listed as "Slough, Slough - Large Town". Hardly intuitive.

    The maps are nice, but it's a struggle getting there.

    1. caffeine addict

      Try searching for "Cambridge"...

      The maps may be in OS style, but they're messy, unintuitive, and a pain to navigate with no scroll wheel or double click (Win7, Chrome 55).

      1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        They're not OS "style", they *are* OS.

  16. IHateWearingATie

    Echo what Chris 125 said. Haven't been to the streetmap site for a while so I had a quick look - it's pretty horrible.

    I won't be going back there - it was great once, but Google Maps (and Bing if I want a 1:50,000 OS) provide a site that is just so much better to use.

    Google Street view on my road is about a year old, maybe 18 months based on the car in my neighbours' driveway :)

  17. anothercynic Silver badge

    Before Google Maps...

    Streetmap was brilliant before Google Maps came along. There was a point where Google Maps did coordinates and StreetMap wouldn't anymore (if I recall correctly, that was very shortlived), and there was the horribleness of its interface. What StreetMap could've done was continue to innovate, which they didn't. They *were* the dominant force in the UK and did jackshit with it.

    Like someone else said, if you rest on your laurels, you'll get a stick up your bum. C'est la vie, StreetMap!

    As for satellite images, Google often gets their stuff from people like TeleAtlas, so prodding TeleAtlas to get satellite imagery updated automatically means Google gets it too. Some of our area is horribly outdated, but trying to get *someone* to take responsibility to update is a 'mare... so we do without. Bing's satellite imagery suffers from the same, so it's not limited to Google.

  18. smallseo

    Google always put's it's own products near the top of search results, not just for map-based queries.

    Perhaps we should stop Sainsbury putting their own-brand food products on their shelves ?

    What a crap reason to initiate a court-case.

  19. MJI Silver badge

    And who goes where the OS maps are?

    Well I do

    Best mapping there is.

  20. Steve Graham

    On the ball?

    It's so long since I've tried Streetmap, I don't have a bookmark. So I typed the likely URL, thinking "British company, but they're bound to have registered the .com domain."

    And indeed they have. But it tries to use the cert for their domain.

  21. MJI Silver badge

    Just tested aerial views


    Google shows my last car, pre write off, so over 3 years ago

    Live shows not at home


    Not detailed enough to tell and goes streetview at the wrong time, no zoom option any more

    Live shows not at work

    Live uses same aerial views as!!!!!

    Any more I can play with?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Break up Google

    Google has well over 50% of the search engine market, at a time when search engines are people's entry to the Web. Search is how people find information, we no longer type in addresses as we once did.

    The Web that people see today is decided by search engines and Google far more so than any other company.

    As a result of this dominance Google should be broken up. If capitalism is allowed to run it's course, as the court is suggesting, there will be no competition. That's capitalism. It learned long ago that there was more profit in rigging the system, destroying opposition, than actually competing.

    If as many claim Google offers the best of all services then those services will remain profitable as separate companies.

  23. Anonymous South African Coward Bronze badge

    Had the opportunity to do some work at remote sites.

    Google Maps found all of the remote sites, no problem.

    HERE maps did not find all the remote sites, only a select few.

    So I had to use a combination of Gmaps and HERE to find the sites in question.

    Another thing I like about HERE is that it will warn you when exceeding the speed limit. So you can cruise all along until you hear the bongs, then you'd slow down. Company car, toyota Yaris, had its speedo in the center of the dash, very very irritating as I use my peripheral vision to keep tabs on my speed (speedo in front of me).

    In some places speed signs was not present and the speed varied from 60km/h to 80km/h to 100km/h and sometimes back and forth between 60 and 80. Great speed trapping opportunities there. And lots of bonging from HERE maps.

    Gmaps? No bonging or warning even though you are exceeding the speed limit...

  24. EnviableOne

    Basically google are doing what they accused MS of with IE.

    MS were using OS dominance to boost Browser market share

    GG are using search dominance to Boost Map Market share

    They cant have it both ways, either accept MS can nundle IE and not offer options or offer options for prefered mapping/info providers

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like