Yesterday we posted a blog about the international fiber cuts a few weeks ago. While I am interested in the geography of fiber and failures in general, we thought it would be a good opportunity to put Google MyMaps through its paces for creating a substantive data driven map. After 25 or so hours of collective labor I thought it would be useful to give the postmortem on our experience.

While there are many positive qualities to Google MyMaps the biggest complaint is that we spent 40 hours mucking about with it. The goal for the last blog post was to create a map that had 1) the fiber routes and landings for impacted carriers, 2) the location of the fiber failures, and 3) the countries that lost connectivity because of the failure. Seemed like a straight forward set of goals and I naively thought we could bang it out in a few hours. So, what ate up our time? Could we just be cartographically challenged?

1) Creating country boundaries – tracing all the countries with outlines so we could make polygons for the failed states was a big sink hole of time. The worst part was when we were not quite complete we hit the limit for the number of points a MyMap could support. Thus it was unfinished and did not make it to the blog post. If you are curious at what point MyMaps bonked here is the map:

View Larger Map

I’m trying to convince someone to count all the points so we have a numeric threshold but I think I need to offer more beer to get the bribe to work. The limit I’ve seen for number of points a My Map can support is 150, but it looks as if we exceeded that for drawing polygons.

2) Dealing with multiple layers – since there were three distinct layers to our MyMap we thought it would be useful to separate them out so the map would be easier to understand. The issue is that you can’t embed a Google MyMap with multiple distinct layers, they have to created as one continuous set. This was almost a deal breaker since we had broken up the work between three people (Bill Emily and myself). Fortunately we found a work around where we saved each of our maps/layers as kml then imported all three onto a new map (except Emily’s countries since it was the limit busting bonking layer).

3) Little bit of cartographic love – while push pins and drawing tools are great for posting pictures of my summer vacation some basic cartographic tools would have made life far easier. Dealing with the lack of a legend is challenging for conveying the story the map is telling. In MyMaps you get a list of every point on the map running down the right pain and with the embed you get nothing.

The conclusion at the end of it is MyMaps is a phenomenal drawing tool for maps – simple and intuitive. On the other hand if you want to create a data intensive map be prepared to run up against some technological limits, but more importantly be prepared to invest a good chunk of time. A large number of these limitations (need for enhancement) have been suggested in the MyMaps Google Group and it will be interesting to see if any are picked up in future releases.

* When I searched for other blog posts that have talked about the pros and cons for MyMaps I came up with zilch – making cross linking pretty tough. Interestingly the only comparison I found was for mapping service, but no one has compared the newer map creation tools. Maybe a topic for next time.

 

One Response to Bumping up Against the Limits of Google MyMaps

  1. MyMaps is a nice, light-weight mapping utility for putting in a couple of markers. It’s best trait is that it is educating the general market on “placemarking” and collaboration.

    However, the other side, GIS, is too complex, expensive, and feature-rich to be useful for quick map building or collaboration.

    It’s a very good point, however, that there is a little actual comparative analysis of Google MyMaps and other online mapping tools.

    There is the middle spot of functionality, utility, and approachability that has been missing from mapping. With Mapufacture we’re addressing that by allowing users to build maps using disparate data sources: demographic data for base layers, user contributions from GeoCMS’s, MyMaps/Platial/KML, and then layering these together and allowing viewers to turn layers on and off and even play around with the temporal aspects of the map.

    This kind of technology was utilized to build this historic hydrological map of Israel (http://mapsomething.com/demo/waterusage/)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>