We'll certainly get more data on what works and what doesn't.
The implications of that statement, however, are not pleasant.
Hopefully they will get UI data. Even the best of current generation of GPS are awful to use if you want to force it to take specific routes. Even analysing the route the GPS is building for you is not often easy and in any case a lot of the metadata is not available visually before the fact. For example, you will get the same symbol for a 4 lanes national road or a 2 lane one. No way to tell the difference on the map as they are the same road category, however, the GPS knows the difference ( it has lane information, different exit strategies, speed limitation difference, ...) but doesn't display it.
When the car primary control is the GPS that better change.
The worst part is that there was one GPS manufacturer who actually did implement the feature you're talking about: http://cdn.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Navigon-...
They were summarily purchased by Garmin and their devices are no longer for sale. The only remnant of their awesome Lane Assist Pro feature is in $30 GPS navigation apps.
It's really too bad.
But hey, if you're a clever person who knows how to code, please file a PR for this feature for Maps.me: https://github.com/mapsme/omim
Re:Death by GPS
by sandworm101 on Sunday May 08, 2016 @08:46PM
(#11656845)
Does presenting more data to the user help? There are situations where giving the operator more data leads only leads to false/overconfidence. I was just reading last week about experiments in the UK with removing painted lane lines, lines BETWEEN traffic directions. People drove slower and, hopefully, this means less accidents.
Tomtom does something like that. They have arrows at the top that indicate lanes and where you should go, they also have a exit preview feature. It could be better, but it's ok.
Re:Death by GPS
by sandworm101 on Sunday May 08, 2016 @08:42PM
(#11656830)
Such crowd-sourcing of safety information is dangerous. We cannot send out cars on the basis that eventually we will get enough feedback on how to make them safe. That was how car companies operated in the 50s and 60s. Today we insist that products are safe before they are allowed on the market. It's a catch-22, but that's Google's problem to solve. If one of their cars injures me during the test phase, expect lawyers.
Re:Death by GPS
by GauntletWizard on Sunday May 08, 2016 @08:43PM
(#11656833)
Thankfully, "Mt. Home" is just off of I-84: https://goo.gl/maps/TShipVvyxGC2
Re:Death by GPS
by sandworm101 on Sunday May 08, 2016 @09:26PM
(#11656982)
Or you are woken up by an airforce guard after your iCar attempts to drive onto the base. Car approaching a checkpoint + not responding to vocal commands + no apparent driver = not good things.
Re:Death by GPS
by GauntletWizard on Sunday May 08, 2016 @09:58PM
(#11657106)
When self-driving cars become commonplace, they're going to learn very quickly to alert the driver that they're approaching the destination... particularly in these spots.
The base may not even be marked on the map. I came across an example [1] recently, just a blank space on Google maps.
I'm waiting for the day that someone tells their iCar to "Drive me Home" and they wake up stranded 7,000 feet up "Mt. Home". It's not the GPS that is the problem. GPS does exactly what it was designed to do. The problem isn't even in the mapping software. The problem is that the human is too ready to give up decision-making to a machine. That should inform many autodrive enthusiasts who think humans cannot be trusted with their own navigation.