Google doesn't seem to care about Maps user safety

[kenchester2]

Is there a moderator to talk to who handles New York City? I’ve applied quite a few accurate edits and additions recently in the city that are showing “not applied” recently. The most recent one, where I added an “Emergency Call Booth” on Roosevelt Island is most ridiculous, since it would seem the company would care about users’ safety while using Google Maps, but it seems they don’t, since they rejected a listing with ample evidence (including pictures). There’s even a category for “emergency call booth” so it’s not like these NYPD phones aren’t relevant enough for Google Maps – and of course I have to give it the generic name of “Emergency Call Booth” because it’s not like the place has a proper name, like “Jerry’s Hot & Ready Call Booth” or something like that… The fact is, there was a shooting in this area previously, and the call booth is there for a reason; Google should let me tell others about it.

I’ve gotten all the way up to Level 7, and thus should be afforded a bit more trust/respect on Google’s system for climbing to this level and contributing to their ecosystem. On a less serious note, when I tried to add an ATM, with pictures and everything, the other day, and also was rejected, perhaps also due to the generic names they have (Hyosung ATMs aren’t linked to a particular bank).

Likewise, when I was at a Burger King in lower Manhattan, there was a phone notification asking me to verify the restaurant’s hours were correct. I looked on the door and they had taped over their weekend hours to make a slight adjustment – but still rejected, since the website apparently still had the old hours. Don’t ask me to verify something while I’m at a particular location if your system isn’t going to trust me…

I’ve also repeatedly tried to add the historic “Battery Park Control House” in Lower Manhattan, and added the link to its listing in the National Register of Historic Places – rejected as usual. Was there even a real person who looked at this very clear evidence provided on a federal government website, or just some algorithm?

Going back to safety issues again, I’ve tried to make “road shape” changes, when Bank St is incorrectly narrowed at its intersection with Jersey St in Staten Island, but it just sits there forever as “pending”, even though this arguably could affect the safety of cars routed here. Looking on satellite view, it’s obvious the street continues a little while past the intersection with Jersey St before narrowing into the unnamed road that follows the shoreline. I was there, and saw it myself. I even added the “New Brighton Historical Marker” there. I have another road shape correction pending forever back in my hometown too – this seems to be an across-the-board problem.

Half of my edits and additions are approved, but the amount of work I put into these ones that are ultimately “not applied” or stuck in “pending” limbo make me want to quit the Local Guides program, since it doesn’t seem to have much respect for users who have contributed to the system and accumulated trust. It’s just not worth the effort, unless there was a way to appeal a rejected addition/edit with more evidence or at least know why something wasn’t applied.

40.765042, -73.948370: see it for yourself, Google

[PaulPavlinovich]

Hi @kenchester2 there is definitely nothing personal in “not applied”. Maps deliberately doesn’t give feedback on why something was rejected as that would make it easier for spammers to spam Maps. If the rejection was quick then it was probably an algorithm and yes it does get things wrong sometimes. Rejection can also happen because it popped up in Check the facts and another Local Guide said no that isn’t there. In the case of the call box it would likely be because it doesn’t have a proper street address. The Local Guides team is led out of NYC so there is plenty of home turf sentiment. I wouldn’t go reading anything such as “disregarding safety” into a rejection. I do understand that it can be frustrating to put in genuine edits only to have them rejected.

Are you always putting a full and proper street address (that is recognised and resolves to the map marker)?

Regards Paul

[kenchester2]

Indeed, @PaulPavlinovich it’s the Google algorithms that don’t seem to care about adding public safety devices to Maps, rather than the humans at Google. Today, I tried once again, and documented the exact geo-coordinates and equivalent street addresses for all of the emergency call boxes on the Queensborough Bridge. I took note of their specific call numbers and even the obscure street addresses associated with them (e.g. apparently the bike path has its own address system where I market the box pictured below: 77 Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge Path, Long Island City, NY)

Still, with all the fine tuning, and following your kind suggestions, it was all to no avail. Another “not applied” a few minutes later. Another safety feature Google’s algorithm is dead set against letting me post.

With regard to the desire to keep out spam, that’s why Mapmaker was disbanded I suppose and why these overzealous bots nix my additions, but the system could be improved dramatically.

The folks at Google are smart people, so I wish they would apply some weighting to their algorithms to account for this frustration. So, in the beginning, a Level 1 Local Guide might have low weighting and Google’s bots + human reviewers might have high weighting, whereas a Level 7 Local Guide might have high weighting, with the bots and reviewers given low weighting. In summary, a Level 1’s edit/addition could be nixed by EITHER a bot or a human review saying “no”, but a Level 7’s edit/addition would need BOTH the bot and human reviewer to deny the suggested change.

@AngieYC I’m picking a random Google Guides Employee to see I can feed this up the chain! Terima kasih for helping on the other side of the world in Indonesia, but since I’m in New York, if it could be brought to anyone’s attention here, I’d be glad to provide my thoughts. Below is the latest denied edit from today:

[AngieYC]

Hello @kenchester2 ,

After adding the missing place on Google maps, you probably received a message which inform you that the place may already exist even though it’s not the same place.

If that’s the case, can you please try to move the pin to the right location and add as much information as possible about this place.

Regarding edits approval, you can read this post Why is my edit status Pending or Not Applied? for further information.

[PaulPavlinovich]

Hi Ken, looking at that address I can immediately see the issue. It is not a valid street address which was what I mentioned in my first reply.

There probably isn’t an easy answer to this one. Maps is about businesses and other places that have a proper street address. What I would suggest you do is head over to Idea Exchange and post an idea with a link to the official list of the call boxes and ask for them to be added to Maps by Googlers. I’m pretty sure that a public service like this would be well received by the Googlers.

Regards Paul

[kenchester2]

@PaulPavlinovich In this case, it IS an accurate address. The call box is in fact on the footpath attached to the Queensborough Bridge rather than the Roosevelt Island footpath almost directly below it, and that address was suggested by Google itself after right-clicking the map and asking “what’s here”. It’s rare for footpaths to have addresses like this (typically the system will call it “unnamed road” when I attempt adding something on a footpath, but the city may have provided the bridge’s footpath an address system for safety purposes or some other reason).

Anyhow, a couple of things could be in play with this particular addition: a) Maps doesn’t allow adding any items to a bridge; b) generic phrase matching is strict for this category (e.g. for the category of “emergency call booth”, if anything matches even one word of this, such as “emergency” or “call”, the algorithm nixes it as a generic name; or c) the system simply has a bias against features that are not on standard, marked roads (though I have successfully added landmarks that are not directly along any particular road, but the guidelines could vary by category). I’m not entirely sure, but I’ll have to bring it up in the Idea Exchange, as I’m worried that the system might start distrusting my input to a greater degree if I submitting these items that get rejected.

@AngieYC , the “place may already exist” pop up occurs almost every time one adds a new location, but it’s never been the case that I’ve created an item that already exists. My issue is generally with how Google doesn’t give an appropriately higher level of trust to higher-level guides who have earned that trust, and specifically in this case of having a category of Emergency Call Booth but never accepting my addition of any items in this category regardless of how I change the listings or provide a multitude of data points. I’m not sure what the root of this problem is, but I’d love to bring this issue up with Google, considering, as @PaulPavlinovich mentions, they likely would care about adding public safety items like this to their map.

Thanks for the input all!

[PaulPavlinovich]

I do not think it is an accurate address @kenchester2 as there is no land parcel there. I do agree that Google seems to think there are some numbers along that bridge for whatever reason but they’re certainly not valid addresses that you can add things to which is why its getting rejected.

@Flash do you know why the bridge would seem to have street address numbers along its length? e.g. 77 Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, Long Island City, NY, USA https://goo.gl/maps/ePBDHGApMwJ2 They’re definitely on the bridge rather than the ground below.

Regards Paul

[kenchester2]

@PaulPavlinovich I see your point here! Google Maps presents it as a valid address but you’re saying that if I were to call up the local police and say “help, I’m at 77 Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge Path, Long Island City, NY 11101” they’d not know where I’m at unless they happened to be using Google Maps. Maps is perhaps generating an address along the footpath.

@Flash To add some data to Paul’s comment, I’ve never had this happen with footpaths previously (it’s always been “unnamed road”, but these seemingly Google-generated addresses seem to be common on bridges, e.g. 736 Roosevelt Island Bridge, Long Island City, NY 11101. Interestingly, the Queensborough Bridge provides separate addresses if you click on the roadway vs. the footpath (basically just removing “Path” from the address, as shown above, so you might get “100 Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, Long Island City, NY” if you click in the right location on the bridge). Clicking elsewhere will give a range of addresses or, curiously, many places revert to what’s common on many other bridges, and just give the bridge’s name, albeit an uncommon name in this case, simply saying “59th St Bridge”. Simply naming the bridge (or naming the footpath) without an address seems to be the more common result on bridges or tunnels, however. Back in my home state, its largest bridge isn’t even recognized on the map (searching “Mackinac Bridge” will put you on the bridge, but clicking “what’s here” anywhere on the structure will just yield “Lake Huron”). There’s an interesting amount of buggy items I’ve found in relation to the Great Lakes region (which I later found apply to other bodies of water in Maps), but I wouldn’t want to stray too far off topic from this discussion of bridges.

Anyhow, that’s my take on this interesting matter!

-Ken

[PaulPavlinovich]

It is an interesting question @kenchester2 if (when) I bump into a Maps developer at Connect Live I will try to remember to ask them about this.

[kenchester2]

Right @PaulPavlinovich , it would be interesting to figure out (at least for map geeks like myself) what causes these divergent addressing patterns on bridges and their walkways, as well as to whether or not items of interest can be added to bridge roadways/paths in the first place. My feeling is that items are currently disallowed from being placed on bridges because I just tried this again with the Bascule Drawbridge Control House, which is situated in the middle of a bridge near my hometown and has an address and contact details since boats need to contact the control house to pass through. This addition to the map was rejected immediately by Google Maps algorithms, however.

[PaulPavlinovich]

It does sound like bridges may be restricted doesn’t it @kenchester2

[kenchester2]

@PaulPavlinovich Indeed. As a final test of the “bridge rule” to see if it was simply the case that features could not be added to a roadway which passes over water, I attempted adding another call box at this location: 61 Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, New York, NY 10044, which was rejected immediately; as you can see, this address is over land. Note that I did not use the “Path” address, but the roadway itself, to weed out other rejection variables. Based on this research, I’m going to say that any feature on a bridge, whether over land or water, or any other form of matter (or lack thereof), will be rejected

[PaulPavlinovich]

It certainly seems this way @kenchester2 this series of experiments will be useful for other Local Guides too.