Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation
Depending upon the version of Android, I've had different things disabled. Wifi scanning. Bluetooth. Cell location data. Etc. Always with one single goal -- GPS only for location.
And further, this is always, especially with newer versions of Android, restricted in many ways. For example, only allowing when an app is active, and so on.
Google has always played games with Maps, using dark patterns. For example, with the versions prior to the current version, if I wanted Maps to zoom in on my location, I'd hit the tracking button.
It'd first say something like "To continue, turn on device location". Of course, device location is on, but it's only for GPS, and google so badly wants that (apparently) vital, and sweet wifi + bluetooth + cell tracking data.
Yet you could cancel this before, and it would then zoom in on your present location. Because, of course, GPS works fine for that.
I could also use only GPS, leaving wifi and bluetooth and so on scanning off to use navigation. I've driven all over North America and Europe that way too, and yes with Maps. Tricky dark patterns (ie, lying) about needing wifi scanning to find a route is just insulting, and absurd.
Now, enter a new update. I can no longer navigate with Google Maps, unless full location tracking is on. Comments in Play Store indicate others hit the same wall. Yeah, right Google, driving in the middle of the country, with GPS, is helped by scanning wifi while I pass farmer's fields?!
Google has now drawn a line in the sand. Give us all your local SSIDs, local bluetooth connections, with likely even more detail, or they now refuse to allow you to use Maps to navigate.
I immediately installed Organic Maps, and I'm sure there are loads of others as an option.
Google wants that wifi data so bad, that the only thing I can equate it to, is a used car salesperson. I get the impression that the Maps team is channeling Sméagol, and just shudder.
451 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 304 ms ] threadThis is a big reason why I carry a Graphene OS phone... and searched eBay for a Garmin GPS -- that cannot phone home! -- for my car.
It it worth it? Are they completely upfront about the data they’re harvesting?
You can opt out. Stand alone gps is still available. Open Street maps is an amazing open source program too.
My car has a 2010 gps. It works. It’s not great but it’s gets you close. In some ways I miss my old Tom Tom. It had the mr. T voice yelling at me where to go.
I would love an app that would feed the data back into open street map.
Only if the user is aware of that.
Not defending Google, they suck. But in this one instance I don't think it's that much of a dirty secret or anything. Just an open dirty behavior.
Last year I used Apple Maps for a 34,000 mile road trip. No significant issues.
In the browser, you can effectively get Apple Maps through DuckDuckGo, as their map service is built on it. There is no meaningful way to get Apple Maps navigation on Android though, and I predict it will stay that way unless Apple decides to turn it into a paid service or changes their stance on selling user data.
I use the “report an issue” link periodically to fix things.
[0] https://wego.here.com/
Edit: Exodus Privacy also confirms that Facebook malware is indeed present: https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.here.ap...
We need a public registry of apps that embed tracking SDKs.
And iOS needs an outbound firewall, now that it is shipping an App Privacy Report.
This can already easily be added through third-party apps. Would a system-wide firewall be a worthwhile improvement? I suppose it would help to have it enabled by default for users who wouldn’t install a tracker firewall app afterwards.
App store link: https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1047223162
GitHub link: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardForiOS
System-wide blocking: https://adguard.com/en/blog/how-to-configure-system-wide-blo...
And they did a rewrite a short while back and it's not as good. I used to love it, but not so much anymore.
Am hoping for Android Auto support to come to Organic Maps.
Fast forward a few years and Apple Maps is now ok (not super but definitely usable) and Google Maps tried to kill me a few times by guiding me to go opposite direction into a highway or into buildings or other wrong directions. The data is super inaccurate on Google Maps.
In Apple Maps it at least shows no road instead of generating roads with completely wrong data.
(I live in Turkey, YMMV)
It's very difficult imagine the marginal benefit of a different app that would overcome their strong brand commitment to privacy for me.
Even easier, just reverse engineer the API and send the SSIDs yourself.
I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(
There was an SSID in my building called "Free Palestine." A couple years later, someone created another one called "The Shin Bet."[0]
I found that to be both disturbing and amusing. After the Muslim grad students on the third floor moved back to Australia, "Free Palestine" disappeared, and when the orthodox Jews moved out of the fourth floor, "The Shin Bet" went away too.
Now it's mostly boring, and while I may be doxxing myself (if you can see this SSID, reply here as we almost certainly live in the same building) but I still have the SSID GranMal (an ironic reference to this[1]).
Moral: Looking at SSIDs can be fun!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Bet
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6015645/
Thanks!
While it may not be the source of your neighbor's SSID, It's certainly possible (maybe even likely) that it's a reference to this song[0].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vmPwZT-9zY
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/29/libel-by-wifi-network-n...
Sure, it was defamation rather than copyright, but it certainly puts the lie to a certain other commenter who seems to think that if he personally can't find it on Google then it must not exist.
Thanks!
Even if there is, I doubt anyone will go after that unless the "attacker" involves some serious crime with that combined.
Attacking innocent people with rogue SSIDs would be definitely wrong, but if done only to trick Google it would be a fun experiment - and they deserve it (maybe not for this particular change but as a company in general).
What would be the legality of that (as long as the intention is not to attack the public)?
Though if I put a thing like that in my window, you'd have to rummage through 20 - 50 flats to find the source of that SSID to identify the creator. With zero legal reason to search my flat over my neighbours flat and vice versa. And also, there is no actual interruption of radio services, so there is no reason to bring in more precise measuring equipment. And I might even have enough time to toss that pi off of the balcony if all else fails.
While that's a wonderfully dystopian view, I'd expect that wouldn't happen unless you attempted to use such SSIDs in a commercial context.
for your "wager" to be successful, I should expect to be sued over saying stuff like "Old McDonald had a quarter pounder Henway" or "Starbuck made the same inferior coffee for Ahab every day."
I'll await cease and desist letters from McDonald's and Starbucks.
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office[0]:
Not sure how using a WiFi SSID or other statement that includes trademarked terms (especially those that have cultural roots separate from the trademarks) could be an infringement unless the source is actually selling or marketing a competing product.[0] https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement
Do you like making lawyers (on both sides) rich? Or tying up courts so they can't hear cases with more merit? Because even if you win, those are the outcomes. Vexatious litigation is a real thing, and practically impossible to prosecute. It can happen to you. The real world doesn't care about your notions of abstract justice, and it's not dystopian to recognize that. If anything, it's your utopian view that's "wonderful" (i.e. appealing but unrealistic) here.
That's a ridiculous statement on its face.
I didn't realize that I could receive my hamburger or cup of coffee via WiFi.
Certainly, if I surreptitiously set up a WiFi network next to an establishment providing WiFi with an SSID that purports to be from that establishment, there's definitely a problem.
But trademark infringement probably isn't even in the top five in the list of problematic issues.
But GP wasn't even suggesting something like that. Rather, he was suggesting using such SSIDs in unlikely places, in a likely futile gesture, to confound Google's douchebaggery.
As such, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Not about frivolous lawsuits, they are a pox on society.
Rather, I disagree that a poor choice of WiFi SSIDs in the context of GPs example (creating such SSIDs in one's moving car to confound Google) could result in a lawsuit from the likes of Starbuck's or McDonald's.
I'd go even further and say that doing so from a stationary site (e.g., one's home), even if that site is in relatively close proximity to such a retail establishment, isn't very likely either.
In fact, a cursory search[0] doesn't show any trademark litigation associated with using SSIDs. The first result is, in fact, your post, with no other relevant results.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=SSID+trademark+infringement
Edit: Fixed typo.
[0] https://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=airbase-ng
[1] quickliest and dirtiest:
Is the goal to make Google Maps publish a Starbucks/McDonalds in the middle of the highway? I can't imagine they would use the SSID as a source for building location.
If you can think of any kind of nefarious use for data, you can safely bet that Zuckerberg has already done it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160830031017/http://fusion.net...
and vice versa, GPS is used to assist on where the SSIDs are located.
[1] which annoys me - a smartphone should be able to figure out that I have not just travelled 200 miles in 2 seconds and filter that out. This is still a (smaller) problem - my current phone often thinks I've jumped 5 miles for a minute and then back.
[0] https://bgr.com/tech/google-maps-forces-you-to-share-locatio...
If you use Google Maps to get around, you probably know that Google has to access your location information. That’s the only way that it can offer turn-by-turn navigation and direction features.
Plenty of map apps can calculate a route offline and offer navigation, without any data leaving the device. But Google and other companies want to keep people ignorant of how much can be done offline, so they have an excuse to spy on us.
Unfortunately I can't find the story of that Mozilla developer that recounted how many times Google introduced "bugs" that only harmed Firefox, and how long it took them to realize this was malicious due to applying Hanlon's razor.
The fact is, if your opponent is even moderately intelligent, Hanlon's razor guarantees to keep you blind to their intentions.
Supports fully offline mobile navigation.
[0] https://osmand.net/
There is justification for it for sure (see https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues?q=is%3Aissue+slow... for a few), and I love OSM out of principle, but as a product, it will remain my last resort until the user experience is tolerable.
OsmAnd is still much more feature-rich, though, so it's worth using if you have a more powerful device. Although i do worry about the battery impact.
The best way I've been able to use it is typing the address's postcode and then finally look for the number or building like a barbarian, but even that doesn't always bring up the result.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/app.organicmaps/
There's a good overview of A-GPS in module 5 here [1]. This is just how people expect GPS to work on modern mobile phones, to the point where they'd probably consider it a bug if they had to wait a while to get a fix.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBINyC3NWU&list=PLGvhNIiu1u...
> I've had different things disabled. Wifi scanning. Bluetooth. Cell location data. Etc. Always with one single goal -- GPS only for location.
That is, fundamentally, what the original post is about.
and after doing all that users will mess up their config and then complain that this app sucks not knowing someone on HN had this feature request for "privacy" reasons even though it's pretty unclear to me what privacy is being gained here.
Apple products generally don't give the user much choice and decide what's right for the UX and it's served them well
It cannot even be claimed to be an UX improvement since it's creating disruption for everybody that had this feature disabled.
At this point they should have added it to the terms of use and deleted the toggle directly (which I suspect they are going to do down the line, when they can prove that nobody keeps that toggle off).
(The datasheets are not a lie. I have had a ZED-F9P on the shelf for a month or so. Plugged it in and had a fix in 32 seconds. The delay was that I could only see 3 GPS satellites, so had to fall back to the slightly slower multi-constellation warm start.)
At this point I'd rather use a paper map then let Google wardrive using my phone 24 hours a day.
Hey, I'm actually trying to see if this is close to somewhere I go! What's the closest post office to my daughter's school? Oh, wait, where'd the school go? Insane.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
You are literally broadcasting it yourself and on most devices you can't even turn broadcasting off anymore.
Honestly, it's not a great piece of info to be leaking, if you value your privacy.
The fine is just another cost of doing business ;)
How does GPS location not achieve same..?
Also - it's still probably possible with satellites or extra sensitive gear (sats already monitor marine AIS).
Could you imagine the outrage if people found out Google was collecting and storing everyone's home address?
Obviously knowing every store you visit is very useful advertising data.
Your phone is already gathering a list of every SSID it touches every second. If Google can eliminate the need to use GPS to confirm that you are sitting at your desk, it can eliminate a bunch of needless GPS calculations.
Source: I used to be the lead GPS engineer on this product.
But say if my wife and I have location sharing enabled, and it updates every several minutes, is there any difference in using SSIDs vs GPS?
Google has done really dark stuff with WiFi networks before, like when it came out that their StreetView cars were wardriving and intercepting data: https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
> The design document showed that, in addition to collecting data that Google could use to map the location of wireless access points, Engineer Doe intended to collect, store, and analyze payload data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks
At this point, I’m skeptical of any data I provide Google; they are masterminds at combining multiple points of data into something useful.
The phone can associate the SSID with a physical location. Maybe also a MAC address?
From a web browser on the laptop, they'll have the wi-fi network's IP address. They won't be told the SSID.
They'll have different pieces of information. I don't think it will help to work out your physical location from a laptop's web browser.
To associate a wi-fi network with a physical location that's helpful for tracking a laptop either: Your phone would need to authenticate to it and reach the internet to get the wi-fi network's IP address whilst on GPS Or: wi-fi networks you're not connected to need to be broadcasting their public MAC address- so far as I'm aware they don't
So to me it's kind of a baffling decision.
I'd believe this has been made to reduce the number of "Maps takes soooo long to acquire my position on the map / can't find me when I'm in a building" complaints. A WiFi scan will be very quick (to the tune of 1-5s) to establish rough coordinates, a GPS TTFF can take minutes or be outright impossible.
For example, I have a 4G hotspot with a proper antenna for areas with poor reception. While traveling to a campground the location remains accurate so long as I'm using Maps for navigation (with GPS). Shortly after I arrive and activate my hotspot, however, my phone starts reporting that I'm at the last place I stayed. And it generally keeps doing that for several days (until I'm about ready to leave) before their database finally updates. If I force a GPS fix—which takes longer due to the bad initial guess—it shows the right place for a while and then reverts once GPS is no longer active. What I want is for it to ignore all the mobile hotspots around me[0] and just use GPS and fixed sources such as cell towers. An out-of-date GPS fix would be better than its guess based on WiFi scanning, but Maps no longer supports navigation without what they laughably refer to as "Google Location Accuracy" enabled. There isn't even an option to include the more reliable sources such as cellular service and local sensors (inertial navigation) while excluding WiFi.
[0] Yes, I know I could rename the hotspot to use some ugly suffix or other ("_no_map", I think?) to avoid it being recorded in the database. That doesn't help with all the other mobile hotspots I don't control.
GrapheneOS is working on a way to redirect the Play services location APIs to an open source implementation of those APIs which uses standard Android location APIs [2]. It's expected to be available in an upcoming release [3].
[1] https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
[2] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/Loc...
[3] https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1486182874567122945
Is this MicroG? https://microg.org/
The way it works in GrapheneOS is that the OS redirects Binder connections (an IPC mechanism in Android) to a trusted, bundled app (GmsCompat) which will only implement the Play services location API in the foreseeable future. The rest of the Google Play functionality is implemented by GMS itself.
[1] https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html#microg...
[2] https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/issues/1567
To be honest, I understand the potentially good intentions behind Google's push to manage keys for app developers. It is not trivial to (1) keep private keys secure, and (2) not lose access to them over a long enough period of time. So Google can store them in HSMs in their datacenters and provide backups and access controls and such. But it also gives them the ability to deliver app updates with "extra stuff" for targeted individuals. See Figure 1 of [1]. That doesn't look very nice to me.
[1] https://developer.android.com/studio/publish/app-signing
I wonder if there's an internal fight between the Tools and Play teams, because all of this should be possible via the Gradle plugin, but understandably the Play team probably wouldn't see high adoption of APK splits if it required configuration via the morass of crap that is Gradle.
It is pretty typical of Google to choose the most invasive solution.
>The signature spoofing could be an unsafe feature only if the user blindly gives any permission to any app, as this permission can't be obtained automatically by the apps. Moreover, to further strengthen the security of our ROM, we modified the signature spoofing permission so that only system privileged apps can obtain it, and no security threat is posed to our users.
https://lineage.microg.org/#faq7
Here are OSM-based maps applications for Android.[0,1]
Not all OSM-based Android apps listed on OpenStreetMap Wiki, so check out also maps apps in various F-Droid repos.[2]
Also here are maps apps for Symbian[3,4] and Maemo[5].
For other platforms there are also a lot of other apps.[6]
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android#OpenStreetMap_ap...
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_ap...
[2] https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Symbian
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/S60Maps
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software/Maemo
[6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software
https://organicmaps.app/
Sadly, since OsmAnd+ 4.1.x it requires Android 6+ to work.
Looking inside changelog of OsmAnd+ I really can't understand why Android 5.x support was dropped.
Actually I can't decide where to move next after OsmAnd: Organic Maps[1], Pocket Maps[2] or something else.
Also from-time-to-time tested Navit[3], but its GUI is far away from what I'm looking for.
[0] https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/index/apk/net.osmand.plus?rep...
[1] https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/index/apk/app.organicmaps?rep...
[2] https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/index/apk/com.junjunguo.pocke...
[3] https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/index/apk/org.navitproject.na...
I mean, that's a pretty old version of Android.
It might have something to do with the requirements for the Android Auto integration, which was just added recently.
For general map browsing, I tend to use Organic Maps. It does a better job rendering urban environments, and even shows primitive 3D buildings when OSM has the data. It's decent as a driving GPS.
Debatably, the best OSM-powered mobile app is OsmAnd, which is a more powerful application with the downsides that come with that -- slow, lots of settings, crowded UI. The killer features IMO are: 1) it's the only one (best I know) that allows users to zoom extremely close, which is vital to see all POIs in dense areas and also helpful to see details of parks and trails 2) it's the only one (best I know) that can interface with Android Auto enabled vehicles. (There's an iOS version of OsmAnd but I've never used it since it requires a subscription for map updates.)
There are particular use cases (eg hiking) when one of these OSM-powered apps will be an adequate or even superior replacement for Google Maps. These use cases are the exception. Google Maps has its own two killer features: 1) realtime traffic for car navigation 2) sophisticated public transit routing, again with realtime data integration.
All 3 of the above apps will attempt public transit routing, but I'd never use them. They don't comprehend train schedules, much less realtime data. They don't handle bus directions at all, though this might be down to the state of the OSM data in the locations I've tried them -- bus route relations are difficult to create and maintain in OSM, and easy to break.
I'm an OSM fanatic myself, so it's saddening not to be able to wholeheartedly endorse any of the current slate of apps. The good news is that the available apps have never been better and continue to improve. Sometime soonish it might be merely a minor inconvenience to de-google your mapping life. (Apple Maps is also pretty good with realtime traffic and public transit routing, if that's an option.)
Have been using it for six years now.
Search is good enough.
I don't know if there is an alternative.
Of course Google's lawyers will argue that this data is in fact required for navigation, the same way some banks in the EU now claim "legitimate interest" when they send you a message about their credit card promotions with winnable prizes, after you've explicitly opted out from all marketing communications.
Google provide Maps for free to an incredible accuracy and value. Unlike Apple, the user is welcome to use any other app, and yet chooses to use Google Maps.
You could maybe argue that Google Maps is part of a package you bought the phone for, but realistically I think the solution is Google are just open about the use of data (which they are really) and offers a paid solution that doesn't track you.
Anyone can charge money for access to an app to compensate for value of data.
> and offers a paid solution that doesn't track you.
of Maps?
They can have my data but they have to pay minimum wage for it.
This is not a slippery slope toward outlawing anything you could possibly sell.
But it surely was an awesome cause for politicians who took this non-issue and made a huge deal out of it. Actual damage done: my browsing UX destroyed and great free services I used every day now under jeopardy.
Congratulations on taking your personal choice and preference and imposing it on the great majority.
They'd never go anywhere near the idea so I don't feel too much pressure to nail down how it would work for non-real-time data.
Really? Never heard of that. Can you elaborate?
[0]: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/7040605?hl=en
[1]: https://ads.google.com/hotels/
You act like it's consumers moving the line. It's Google. Massively profitable for a long time now, Google. Your argument is that if we resist Google's ever-advancing march deeper into our privacy, that we consumers are the ones who are changing things, making things unfair to poor Google.
This part of your comment makes no sense to me - how do Apple users not have choice in maps apps...?
Microsoft lost the case to be able to directly control the user's browser experience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
Will. Never. Happen. GLS is dystopian hellscape tracking masquerading under the fig leaf of "anonymity". Its technical details, pretty much a wet dream of the world's spy agencies, will never be revealed.
I am a paying customer for a bunch of other Google products.
We’ve also seen with custom domain grandfathering out that they’re not out of options regarding their services terms.
They choose to make Maps free, and there is no option to pay for Maps outside of the API.
“Don’t complain it’s free.” is not a valid argument when it is a revenue making product from a for profit product company. It’s their choice, not ours.
> at what point are we asking too much for free?
At the point that they should *STOP*, which is also free.
Remember openstreetmaps is also free. I fully support freeware being paywalled as that would decimate FAMANG's userbase.
If Google maps was not free, there would be more of a market for competing mapping products.
A mapping product has a natural intersection with advertisements - a non-negligible number of mapped trips are commercial in nature, and can thus catch consumers right before the moment of purchase. This might prove fertile ground for a new competitor.
So Google gives maps away, and anyone who wants to compete has to compete with free, and starts with a tremendous data disadvantage.
Through this lens, requiring you to disclose more data makes sense. They strengthen their data moat around the free product, which in turn protects their dominant position in ads.
I would like to see regulators crack down on this kind of anti-competitive behavior.
Even today, outside of gaming/entertainment, the consumer software market is basically a wasteland. But if you had to pay for a browser today (pick your favorite), how much would that be worth to you? (Netscape cost $50! Or $90 in today’s equivalent.) I can’t think of any other market where we expect so much in exchange for paying so little.
Most likely today’s end state was inevitable; if MSFT hadn’t bundled IE, someone else would have made a similar play and capitalized on the network effects.
where it gets philosophically interesting is how this integration can cut across dimensions. software can be bundled horizontally, and software+hardware+commerce+service can be bundled vertically.
integration often leads to smoother experiences for end users at reduced cost, but comes at the expense of winner take all economics in the marketplace.
finding the right balance across both dimensions will be the great challenge for 21st century technology regulation. it's unclear to me how much antitrust experience from the past will help with this (or if consolidation may actually be desirable, freeing up capacity for new problems)
I consider that Google Maps being free stagnated the maps market, and stopped any innovation from happening. Often when I say this, I get "But OpenStreetMap". When only volunteers can compete, that's a definite proof something's wrong.
(though arguably Google Maps did improve a bit over time, while gmail really didn't at all)
"Apple Maps, is by far the most prolific current corporate editor and was responsible for almost 80% of all edits to pre-existing roads in 2018."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-19/openstree... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jennings%20Anderson/diary...
Openstreetmap has never been volunteer only, but to be fair its only in the last decade that we've seen this change.
But isn't this reasoning sort of paradox? Google is asking for something here in exchange of allowing to use the navigation feature. That makes it by definition not free - it's just, there is no straight-forward monetary price to it.
You can redefine "free" as "any price other than money" - and lots of people in tech seem to do exactly that - but then, if done honestly, you'd have to allow people to reason about non-monetary prices in the same way as about monetary ones: Compare them, decide about fairness, etc.
What scares me is that frequently, this isn't done - on the contrary: A developer can make its users jump through all kinds of hoops and demand whatever they want - and all is ok because it's "free"!
iPhones let you install Google Maps, you're not locked in to Apple Maps.
By the way, there is nothing free here. All of those advertising dollars come out of our pockets via increased products costs.
On the other hand, Google has often played hardball with manufacturers who wanted to include other location technology…
https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...
But it is essential. Google (and Apple) maps provide lane specific navigation directions, which are really only possible with assisted GPS. In theory GPS has the accuracy, but remember you are in a big metal box filled with electrical wires. Not to mention other applications like isle specific navigation within stores, which is made possible by bluetooth beacons.
Heck, we are on the verge of a major world conflict where GPS accuracy may be degraded intentionally by the US or jammed by other forces.
Edit: Navigation is used in situations other than racing down the autobahn at 100 mph. Wifi triangulation is used when you are doing 20 mph on a busy street and need to be in the right lane to make a turn, or when you are walking down the street and need to know which unmarked door is the business you are looking for.
Here is some background on why GPS is shit in urban environments: https://vitalalert.com/markets/positioning-smart-cities/3d-p...
How many Wifi access points and Bluetooth beacons is Google expecting to find on the highway while moving at 70mph?
Or if gps errors are correlated between phones.
So my phone by itself doesn't know the direction of the signal, but two or more other phones could combine our location data with relative wifi signal strength and potentially get a better idea of where the signal is coming from. (I had forgotten that we were talking about an entity that potentially knows the data from all the devices, not just one endpoint.)
Most of the android tracing that I've seen logged on location history is wifi multilateration based. Since wifi is on most of the time, it's the quickest way of finding your location (since you're most likely on the road), and you can turn off GPS saving about 25mW or more of power.
https://support.google.com/waze/partners/answer/9416071?hl=e...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/29/18202359/waze-beacons-nyc...
In other words, it's still useful for navigation like "you are now 2000 meters/yards/cubits into the tunnel, therefore you should be taking either of the two middle lanes", but the trick is, this doesn't require the app to know your current lane.
Where they are useful is when you are indoors. Or when a tracking business wants an excuse to send your location to their servers.
Google employee: "I work at a tracking business"
That being said, wanting more user data is probably the right answer.
I am not claiming that this is where Google needs to draw the line in the sand - but there obviously is such a limit to these considerations.
I don't know why people throw up random excuses for companies instead of accepting the simplest answer - they want as much data as they can.
During which (brief?) time we will have other pressing concerns beyond degraded mapping services. Why should this temporary condition that on its own is certainly not 'crippling' be an excuse for accepting that Google/Alphabet and like minded corporations want technical approaches that enable them to know everything about us 24/7?
Assuming that's true (I'm skeptical), there's no reason why it can't gracefully degrade without the added information.
Regardless, I'm not sure what you mean by lane-specific navigation. Yes, I've seen Google put up a little drawing of the multiple lanes, with the correct lanes for the next turn in bright white, and the incorrect lanes in grey, but that doesn't need to know what lane you're currently in, as it just highlights which lanes are correct and incorrect, regardless of where you are.
lol wtf. Source?
Sure. And stand-alone GPS navigation devices also don't work in cars.
As someone who's degree had a course in sattelite rangefinding(both code and phase), this is bullshit. Code GPS measurement should be enough for that. Especially when you already contain road data to which you can snap, and probably have access to accelerometer too which can easily improve accuracy of 'snapping'.
You don't need to get precision down to a lane on the road for purpose of navigation, you just need to 'snap' to the right road. and warn user beforehand if they need to take a turn. Just like 'dumb' GPS navigation did prior to smartphone era, while having access to less satellite systems.
So you are well versed in multipath reflection and why it makes unassisted GPS in urban environments with tall buildings close together almost completely unusable?
> You don't need to get precision down to a lane on the road for purpose of navigation
If you want to build an early 2000s Garmin competitor, sure. But people don't buy $1,500 pocket computers every 18 months to keep doing the same thing.
Not to be argumentative but dedicated GPS devices didn’t always have that option. Also I’m curious: it uses triangulation off cell towers to help. I don’t see how Bluetooth helps improve accuracy. Do they map WiFi spots accurately?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
Yes, there are a number of companies that maintain BSSID->Lat/Long Databases. Skyhook is probably the biggest commercial one, and https://www.wigle.net/ the biggest open source one.
Yes, a common problem even for static measurements. Yet it worked with 'dumb' gps navigations. Btw - it's not just a p roblem in urban evirorments, especially for phase measurements - you shouldn't do precise measurements near the trees.
Just to illustrate when doing a phase measurement, under good HDOP constellation, next to the forest we barely could achieve an accuracy of half meter using Leica 1200. We measured the same reference point using total station and neighboring network of reference points.
For a reference, you could easily get sub 2cm accuracy, although below 10cm was a minimum target for that job.
>If you want to build an early 2000s Garmin competitor, sure. But people don't buy $1,500 pocket computers every 18 months to keep doing the same thing.
Sure, but it isn't a CORE REQUIREMENT for the service to function. you can degrade it, and have it work pretty well, without requiring all users to submit other tracking data sources.
Again, you don't know Maps product roadmap. Google is taking its "Next Billion Users" initiative very seriously internally. They might be looking at ways to offer navigation using only a Wifi/Bluetooth chip so they can make Android devices as cheaply as possible.
There is also the possibility that GPS may not be functional in areas Google wants to serve. The US Government blacked out GPS over multiple states during a test. China has satellites that can rip other countries satellites out of the sky. Russia intentionally crashed an old weather satellite into an Iridium satellite just as a weird flex.
This sentiment also applies to your second point — if Google wants to get some kind of navigation working without using gps in some niche market categories, that’s fine. But that shouldn’t require me, with the gps module I paid for in my expensive smartphone, to share data with Google that I don’t want them to have and they don’t technically need.
That still does not excuse them for requiring access to those data sources, as they can still degrade service when user does not give consent. Also there are multiple networks at the moment(USA's GPS, Russia's GLONASS, China's COMPASS/BEIDOU(forgot which was geostationary system, and which one was global),and EU's Galileo), which makes total blackout of a single area unlikely.
And quite frankly, in case of total blackout we have a bigger problems than civilian GPS navigation.
I don't have enough experience with the technical challenges of getting a good signal from a phone's tiny GPS antenna inside a vehicle, but that difficulty shouldn't give a company the right to violate privacy. If hardware is limited, make it better or make the limitation clear to the user and let them decide if they want to give extra data to allow a better experience.
We've had good enough navigation in mobile phones for years, why would they suddenly need to make this change now? And why can't I just keep the slightly worse experience if I prefer GPS-only location?
I'm trying very hard to not be sarcastic, but the past 10+ years it was not essential and served me great every time
Tell me exactly how this bluetooth beacons and WiFi APs will help you to determine the lanes? I did several research projects in this area and RF mapping by indoor beacons for navigating outdoors at vehicular speeds is very hard and unreliable. You don't want to get wrong bearing just because an WiFi AP has been moved to another spot. Nice in theory, BS in practice.
My box full of old TomToms and Garmins guffaws at this patently absurd claim.
Why do you think the Goog's apps are bound to the same terms as other developers? That agreement allows devs use Goog's services.
Is it? Doesn't seem to be a problem for Apple/Ios.
And here is how I know it is a charade: voice navigation and the map itself both work perfectly in the background of this undismissable pop-up.
This is the most coerced I've felt in a long time and I can't help but feel that maybe iOS users don't feel this way.
They were already doing it and asking us to turn on camera to "better calibrate my location".
It’s still rather bad about explorative searching for businesses/restaurants and getting accurate hours, so sometimes I’ll find a place using google maps and then put it into Apple Maps.
That it just pipes Yelp results infuriates me every time I deal with it, as I refuse to sign up for Yelp.
Another benefit of Apple maps is that it gets preferential treatment from the os in that it appears on the lock screen when navigating (I really wish this api was open to third parties). This is nice for navigation on foot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708157
OP's solution of installing another Android maps app is probably the best available option that fits OP's privacy requirements.
EDIT: Meaning I am able to keep my wheels rolling and do not end up in traffic jams.
Sunk cost didn't bother me when I uninstalled Google Maps from my phone. Good riddance.