Feedback and Improvement Suggestions for the Road Mapper Platform

I have been contributing to the Road Mapper platform since 2019, and so far, my total contribution exceeds 78,761 km of mapped roads. Over the past four years, I have noticed that there have been no major updates or new features added to the platform. As an active contributor, I believe a few improvements could make the platform more efficient and engaging—especially since a significant number of Local Guides are now actively contributing.

Below are my humble suggestions for consideration:

1. Expand Mapping Opportunities Beyond the Existing Countries

Currently, the Road Mapper platform is available in only ten countries. However, there are many developing nations—such as Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Iran—that are undergoing continuous infrastructure development.
If it’s not possible to officially add more countries right now, I suggest introducing a feature that allows contributors to input specific GPS coordinates and draw roads in their chosen areas, similar to how existing country blocks work.
This would enable contributors to map roads in regions where there are no legal restrictions, helping to fill global gaps in road data coverage.

2. Introduce a Contact Person or Support Channel

At present, it’s unclear which Google office or team is responsible for managing the Road Mapper platform.
Sometimes we encounter technical issues or data irregularities that we would like to report directly. Having a dedicated contact person or official email address would make it easier for contributors to share feedback, raise concerns, and communicate directly with the responsible team.

3. Add a “Top 100 Contributors” Feature

Currently, contributors receive only a monthly summary email showing the total progress made on the platform.
To make Road Mapper more engaging, a Top 100 Contributors leaderboard could be added.
This would encourage healthy competition, motivate contributors, and make the platform more interactive and community-driven.

4. Cross-Verification System for Quality Assurance

To improve accuracy, I propose introducing a cross-verification feature, where a road drawn by one contributor is randomly assigned to another contributor for review.
This would significantly reduce mapping errors and ensure that data quality and precision remain the highest priority over quantity.

5. Review Monthly Report Accuracy

In the monthly update email, the summary includes total kilometers of roads mapped and approved. However, I’ve noticed that pending roads are often counted as denied, which lowers the acceptance percentage ratio.
I kindly request the technical team to review this issue and verify whether it’s a system bug or data calculation error so that monthly statistics accurately reflect contributors’ true performance.

CC : @Kristen_NYC @Ivi_Ge

31 Likes

I am a novice Mapper
However you have a Great thought
Appreciated @MahabubMunna

2 Likes

Hi @MahabubMunna

One improvement I have been contemplating is a way to select the next challenge as the frame just north, west, south, or east of the frame you just drew roads in.

Cheers

8 Likes

Hello @MahabubMunna

Congratulations!!!
This is a great suggestion, thank you for speaking up for us. We have been communicating with the team of recent over issues on Road Mapper.

Please join us. We still have 2 weeks of TORM event left. We will be happy to have a professional like you with us.

Happy mapping
Cheers

6 Likes

@SholaIB thanks for your invitation i just fill up the form

3 Likes

Wow @MahabubMunna

I am very delighted and happy. Thank you for joining us.

@JustJake look who joined our team ? We’re flying higher than usual now.

@Kumaarsantosh I’ve got a surprise for you,a professional mapper has joined our team

Happy mapping
Cheers

3 Likes

Hi @MahabubMunna vai,
Thank you very much for your great suggestion.
If your suggestion is truly implemented, then a significant impact could be observed in the field of road mapping.

1 Like

This is a significant milestone. The effort you put in is beyond words. We sincerely appreciate your hard work and dedication!

1 Like

Very good points you raised @MahabubMunna, specially #1, 2, and 5.

Remember that the Top 100 Leaderboard series is a creature of @AdamGT and is not managed by Google. His Leaderboards are only populated with data that can be properly verified on the Google Maps system. The Road Mapper program seems to be an independent initiative.

2 Likes

@tony_b I know that some individuals are personally practicing the Top 100 series, but participation there is optional — for example, I didn’t take part in it. Wouldn’t it be better if an official system were arranged for this Platform?

Not sure if it would be better or worse, but I assume the absence of an official system is what prompted @AdamGT to pursue his privately run initiative.

1 Like

Thank you for sharing such a well-structured and thoughtful post. Your suggestions reflect real on the ground experience and highlight exactly what many active contributors feel. Expanding mapping opportunities, adding a leaderboard, and introducing a verification system would make Road Mapper much more efficient and engaging. I truly hope the Google team reviews these points for future improvements.

This is great suggestion for road mapper platform. Hope the team considered all & take necessary action for us. Thank you again @MahabubMunna

1 Like

Great write-up, @MahabubMunna, you’ve got some great ideas here. I’m so happy that Road Mapper is generating a buzz again. And I’m stoked you’ve decided to join the TORM Challenge!

Back in 2021, we were provided with the email address, roadmapper-feedback@google.com to give feedback in the FAQ Post. I’ve used it and it works. There is also a ‘Feedback’ button down in the footer of every Road Mapper page.

This is an Awesome Idea! I dig it. We don’t even know how many active RMs there are out there, this would really make the program fun.

I’d argue this is already happening whenever we’re presented with a Challenge that includes approved White Lines, no? Sometimes, roads have been drawn that are incorrect or off-center, and we have the opportunity to correct them within the Challenge. Are you envisioning a different method, or a more specific ‘fact-check’ kind of feature?

This was a surprise to me. Thank you for pointing this out! I can’t imagine how poorly the October percentages are going to be with how far behind approvals/reviews are right now!

1 Like

This is a problem that atarted in September, which explains my 74% rate instead of the usual 99% approved. It isn’t because my roads failed the test and were rejected. It’s just that they were still pending at September 30th, and never got approved until some time in October.

Mathematically, this is incorrect. If I draw 400 roads and 295 are accepted out of 300 reviewed, while 100 are not yet reviewed, that is 295/300 or 98%, NOT 295/400 to give 74%.

1 Like