So I switched over to Apple Maps and started tracking how often it is off in its estimates (& also trip duration) -- I have like a commute that can be anywhere from 40 minutes to 90 minutes or more, depending on traffic -- and I was pleasantly surprised that it got me to destination within +/-5 minutes of when it said it would and that the journey was taking less time that with Waze. It also knew about the back entrance of my work site and was able to route better with some of the smaller side streets in the neighborhood too.
I've always preferred the Apple Maps UI -- it shows all the lanes at top, stoplights are more prominently shown, though the speedometer on Waze was nice, plus Waze alerted you to police presence too. It gives you a buffer when wishing to change route (Waze frequently would change the route and instruct me to take an exit that was 300 feet away when I was in the furthest lane from the exit side) to check off and is totally ad-free, and incorporated into iOS (yeah, Apple monopoly and all, true).
I've long thought that Waze creates the illusion of saving massive amounts of time, when its benefits are marginal (although real). I know I personally prefer an active commute to one waiting in traffic, even if travel times are identical. Waze seems to maximize for the latter.
 - https://arturgrabow.ski/2018/02/19/navigation-apps/amp/
After enough of those, I reluctantly stopped using Waze.
I use Waze mostly for the police presence. And there was a lot today (end of month...).
A nice feature would be if it sees more police presence than usual you just get a general warning "there's more police presence on your route than usual".
Even when sitting next to each other in the same car, Google Maps suggests radically different routes to the same destination on my wife’s phone than it does on mine, often with a 15+ min difference in arrival time. It must be testing different routing algorithms as otherwise they should be the same.
I imagine the distance is going to be wildly* nontrivial as well. You'd need to factor in traffic density, weather conditions, road works, predicted traffic density, actual distance as well as traffic speed, not to mention fuzzy human things like scenery. Just going for "shortest euclidian distance" will end up with routing through every alley and side-street if it's even the tiniest amount shorter.
I wouldn't be surprised if you end up with a distance metric that looks essentially random unless you're deeply inspecting the graph at the time of routing to see why a certain route is shorter than another.
Of course that doesn't exclude A/B testing, but with google maps they clearly have a routing graph that's updating all the time. It's no surprise that asking for the same route twice can give you different answers. Not to mention they probably include a random factor on purpose so they don't route all the cars through the same street. Of course you'd want the random factor big enough to spread the load, but not so big that random people get shafted by a significantly longer commute.
Seems like an interesting problem to tackle actually, I should look at building an open street map based route planner sometime.
I think Waze only really saved time when it wasn't popular. Once everyone takes the same shortcut, you're back where you started.
I still use Google Maps when I'm unfamiliar with the drive for the reasons you mention (ie, it needlessly took me down a busy grid-locked road once).
But otherwise nothing beats Waze for the additional features like construction and police reporting plus it does a good job of finding fast routes far more often than not.
This really does call for a larger study, though. It would be nice to see how the error bars and potential differences come out across different trip times, and different drivers.
My intuition (listening to AI and DL podcasts) is that they just train too-general US-based (or evaluated or reinforced more specifically) models. Anyhow it's a disappointing situation that e.g. Google maps makes way more mistakes today than it did 5 years ago (but it also does more overall, I guess it's a trade-off, e.g. now it's great for public transportation in large enough cities).
I would be interested in trying out a "no left turns" (or at least no unprotected left turns) route preference.
There's a reason you seldom see UPS and FedEx trucks trying to turn left in crowded urban settings. It's because they cost time and money. Why don't Google and Apple understand that, and give us an option to avoid or discourage left turns?
Happens to me all the time.
It also seems to assume crossing a bridge at rush hour is cheap. My only guess, and this truly is a guess, it is sees people in the bridge lane stopped and the thru lane moving and takes the average.
Maps really need a “not worth it” features for tiny optimizations. I’d often prefer a slightly slower route that’s less work to drive.
> I’d often prefer a slightly slower route that’s less work to drive.
Me too, and I suspect most people — like, when is it ever a good option to avoid a free highway to save 1 minute when the driving is twice or more fatiguing? Are we bodyless machines or animals with a concept for "tired" and "attention"? This is where I feel recent evolutions in DL have been, perhaps, more for the benefit of developers and researchers (efficiency), and maybe not for real human benefits on the user side.
I don't claim the problem is easy, but I know second-hand that what users want and what AI projects solve for may be two very different X.
Seriously. I regularly travel from Ohio to Michigan and back, and often times if I take an exit for gas, Google Maps will assume I want to take an obscure country backroad for the final 2 hours rather than get back on the highway.
I absolutely do not want to worry about deer, a lack of gas stations, food, and light.
She’s certainly not wrong that from a UX perspective, simple can be really nice, especially if you’re driving on crowded roads and want to focus on driving.
It feels like cheating to the other drivers who didn’t take the “short cut” and leads to delays all around due to the extra merging going on. (exhibit A: I-85N vs. I-285 in Atlanta, aka Spaghetti Junction)
I also used to work for a company where I occasionally visited an office where Waze was really popular with the folks who worked there. And found that that, when we were meeting up somewhere halfway across town after work, I would typically get there before the Waze users about as often as they got there before me. So, not really much of a time saver. Judging from my experiences on the occasions that someone gave me a ride somewhere, I was probably having a more pleasant, albeit lower-tech, driving experience, too.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd imagine Waze has a law of large numbers problem: The sample size they have for estimating the travel time along any given stretch of side road is smaller, and there's also a lot more ways to route oneself on the side roads, and those two factors compound to mean a relatively high chance that at least one of the routes Waze considers has been assigned a grossly over-optimistic travel time estimate.
I grew up in Ft. Lauderdale and when I go back I use Google maps. Waze would take you down roads I'd never use. Also I went to the keys and US1 had an accident. Google maps gave me a parallel road to save me 30 minutes. I thought it was wrong. I turned reluctantly and sure enough, it was a good route... Waze was like derp derp...which was probably to my advantage as everyone else sat in traffic.
I mostly use apple maps now with car play which is fine. After we moved my commute went from ~20-45 minutes to ~12 minutes so Waze really isn't a necessity anymore. :/
The problem is that having the speed traps and radar sites on there is just too crucial to give up. I've never found a replacement that does that.
Demonstrably untrue. There is an entire very technical industry for this sort of thing. People who take an interest in their communities and go to planning and city council meetings know this. Those who are not involved their communities just complain and blame it on The Man out to get them.
You need to break pretty hard to not get fined.
The industry being technical does nothing to prevent it's general rules from being dictated by politics. If an engineer does a study that shows no significant increase in injury by increasing the speed limit 10 MPH, I find it highly unlikely the city or state is going to approve it based on those findings.
My morning commute involves a blind left turn out of a residential street. Cars parked on the curb obstruct my view of oncoming traffic in the right lane. This isn't a problem when that traffic observes the 35 mph speed limit. I've had far too many close calls with self-centered jerks driving 55 mph in that lane. Sporty sedans are impossible to see over a row of parked cars.
Therefore, the fact that it's left up to the drivers to guess when it is safe and when it isn't means many folks are going to guess wrong and speed when it's unsafe. Would be much better if the signage just actually accurately reflected the safe limits.
Driving within a reasonable margin above the limit is safe on most roads, under good surface and visibility conditions.
(I wonder if the Waze ToS admits to having any crowdsourced data entered by users flow through to GoogleMaps?)
As for legality, the "content" you submit (which looks to include road condition/event submissions) is sub-licensable and transferable,
https://www.waze.com/legal/tos "rights in content".
But Apple Maps has one massive advantage which is the reason I ditched Google Maps and that is the UX. I love how simple it is to read the maps. Important information is shown prominently during navigation and the UI feels super clean. Google Maps, on the other hands, feels really cluttered and slow. It takes a good few seconds just to see the map after you open the app because they are loading all the unnecessary BS like new restaurants, nearby events etc.
I love how this effort relies on & amplifies what were before relatively obscure specialties
The mapping wars elevate cartographers, mapping specialists, GIS data nerds, mobile computing / compression phds, GPS parsing engineers, ex-dod intertial navigation specialists, etc.
And rallied them around a massive, insanely big problem of mapping and organizing the entire physical world in real time and relying on consumer grade hardware to drive incredible fidelity.
It's humbling and really cool to see people that have dedicated their lives to these disciplines that were somewhat relegated to specialized use cases enter the "rockstar" stadium to deliver something that legitimately changes the way that billions of humans interact with the world
If we ever get serious about increasing competition in the tech sector, an easy place to start is letting users set default browsers, maps, and email clients on their devices.
One profession missing in the parent comment are the researchers innovating on differential privacy. Apple has taken great pains to figure out ways to improve their maps without storing massive amounts of private user data, to the extent that they split routes in half, fuzz addresses, and analyze the start and end of trips independently.
There's an argument that Google had such a huge head start on maps, that without Apple having the capacity to set defaults (on a platform that is not even a plurality of users), Apple Maps wouldn't have gotten enough users to justify improvements to where it is now. Apple also didn't get serious about having its own maps until Google attempted to exercise their at-the-time near-monopoly power to jack up licensing costs. Now the mere existence of Apple maps puts pressure on Google to improve the privacy features of its own map products as we've seen recently.
Apple funds map development through device sales, and Google does it through targeted advertising, map services for third parties, and profiling users. Do we value competition only of mapping products, or should we also value a diversity of business models for mapping products? It's no small decision to bring in the Kommissar.
Sidenote: I disagree that Apple Maps' success puts pressure on Google to up their privacy game. On the contrary, Google Maps comparative advantage is their data trove, as there are many more users of Google Maps than Apple Maps, so they seem more likely to lean on that to succeed.
I wouldn't look to the market to improve privacy, since as I said above, the market clearly doesn't care about privacy much at all. Without a seismic shift in public attitudes towards privacy, it's up to the government or the companies themselves to adapt.
Are they demonstrating their willingness, or do they simply not understand that there is a choice to be made? Considering the trivial difference in mapping performance in most places, I doubt most people would be willing to give up their privacy in exchange for saving a few seconds on their drive to the mall.
> Without a seismic shift in public attitudes towards privacy,
If people were truly aware of how much data is collected on them, how many people would opt in for the marginal benefits you get in return?
Acting as if people are unaware of data collection is disingenuous. If you told the average facebook user how much facebook and its third-party partners knew about them, I doubt many of them would stop using the platform.
It's not just ignorance, but a sense of helplessness. People don't feel in control and don't have any clue how they might reduce what data leaks out in their daily lives. The thing is, they are absolutely right.
I know and understand a lot of this stuff and I don't feel like I'm in control of my data. Even if you take precautions, Google and Facebook track your progress across the web. If you don't use Google Maps, Google still tracks your location using your IP address for network calls (often when you aren't deliberately connecting to Google services) and both Google and Facebook have been slurping up people's purchase history through credit card companies.
How is someone who doesn't have a clue about this stuff supposed to exert any control or choice when the people attacking their privacy out-gun them so thoroughly?
* Added incognito mode to maps
* Expands auto deletion of old data to include locations, and location searches
Now... this might not be due solely to competitive pressures from Apple, but it was a topic of conversations I had with pro-privacy Android users I know who have been warming up to iOS. Feature introductions like this definitely take the edge off.
Then buy Android if that's a tradeoff you're willing to make.
That was never going to work for Apple.
At the time of the MS/IE lawsuit (2001), Microsoft Windows had well over 95% of desktop operating system market share.
Edit: I want to add that during the suit MS reps had a glib but prescient defense: "we think web browsers should be free". They meant as in beer, but they were right in the larger sense, and few would disagree with them today.
Netscape was arguing that their by-then totally crappy commercial browser deserved protection from the state, when their demise had a lot more to do with insane bloat and their embrace of groupware.
Safari is great on iOS. I’ve never felt the need to run something different. Same with sideloading apps. I’ve never seen the need for that. Maybe I’m an Apple fanboy but I think they’re doing the right thing in both cases.
Not setting a default is bad too. Wish I could get there.
This is so disingenuous. It's called Android. People hate it. Although the walled garden may offend you personally, the market at large has spoken.
It's probably enough to make anyone switch to Android, but it can still be a welcome addition to iOS
If Google restricted the user in the same way, that would arguably be closer to the Microsoft situation because their marketshare is 2x Apple's.
- Strong encryption
- Privacy Protections
- Not using user data
Even if you were going to restrict to just the US, Apple still sells fewer than 50% of the phones.
> The market is all the places the devices are sold.
Certainly US regulators / courts don't purport to have jurisdiction over foreign markets, agreed? The aforementioned EU case against Microsoft was about the EU market alone.
Google would like you to have a discussion with the EU on their behalf.
If apple cared about elevating the discipline and righting the abuses of big tech with their mapping app they'd partner with OpenStreetMap and make the data public rather than continuing to silo all the data about you and everyone around you.
Instead we're continuing the closed source data gathering land rush and trying to beat google at its own game.
Are you suggesting Google didnt elevate the discipline of search because their backend is closed?
(Source: Talk by Apple employee at the OSM'a 'State of the Map' conference 2018 https://2018.stateofthemap.org/2018/T081-Working_with_the_Co... )
I’m genuinely curious why you think they should do this.
Because they would be legally obligated to when using OSM as a base for anything.
Also, because it would benefit society.
They have a good history of community contribution (eg. Darwin, WebKit) so I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of some random anonymous internet commenter angst.
I also don’t see how it is consistent with their behavior. For example, Apple wouldn’t need to change anything to bash to make its latest version run on MacOS. Yet, they don’t ship it.
On the other hand, the argument that they don’t avoid the GPL in general, but specifically GPLv3 because of legal concerns is consistent with their behavior. They shipped the latest GPLv2 licensed bash for years, but avoid any GPLv3 licensed version.
Apple has historically been hostile to the GPL. Remember when Apple removed the GPLv2-licensed VLC from the App Store in 2011?
VLC didn't return to the App Store until the iOS version was dual-licensed under the MPL 30 months later.
Also, IIRC, Apple doesn't have a policy of prohibiting GPL-licensed software from being in the App Store, but rather, the FSF's own interpretation of the GPL is that its terms are incompatible with the App Store's terms.
> WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here.
Even though those licenses don't require it, Apple still actively develops and publishes enormous FOSS projects. Here's a page that lists more of them: https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
Apple gives back way more than they're legally required to. They don't like the GPLv3 specifically, but's worlds apart from saying they avoid the GPL or that they don't want to give back.
”I created a layer on top of an OSM map. What do I have to put under your license?
You have to determine whether what you have created is a Collective Work or a Derivative work, under the terms of the OSM licence.
If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create a new layer by looking at the OSM data and refering to locations on it) then it is likely you have created a derivative work.
If you generate a merged work with OSM data and other data (such as a printed map or pdf map) where the non-OSM data can no longer be considered to be separate and independent from the OSM data, is is likely you have created a derivative work.
If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources (for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you may have created a collective work.
If you have created a derivative work, the work as a whole must be subject to the OSM licence. If you have created a collective work, then only the OSM component of the work must be subject to the OSM licence.”
IANAL, but I think anybody can overlay OSM data with traffic info, satellite photography, layers with names of shops, etc., without creating a derivative work.
In reality, the market offers rewards proportional to value that can be withheld, as leverage for price negotiation.
It would be a big deal to create an economic system that reliably measures and rewards benefit to society. I haven't the faintest idea how.
The thing is, they did this before. But the interaction just wasn't direct. All of those people were doing important work for government and business organizations wherever getting around and knowing where you and other things are mattered, and improving the quality of services.
Now we get first-hand experience with their work, which is fantastic. Map apps are probably the thing that most enticed me onto a smart phone and the thing I'd have a hardest time giving up.
I just hope that every time we remember the before and after for these amazing conveniences, we remember that all these disciplines and professionals were important beforehand, and that there are others that are woven quietly into public and private life. Because there's a lot of voices right now that seem interested in burning down institutions and not enough curiosity in what those institutions have done for us.
This is such a Silicon Valley perspective.
It reminds me of some advice given to me by a heavily successful industrialist friend — never dismiss your competition, for the world is not static.
I'm sure the contract company siphons most of the contract value from Apple and the dedicated workers doing all the GIS work, the turn-by-turn descriptions, business identifications, etc. updating all the things that made the original Apple Maps such a delicious joke are left with an income that barely meets expenses in a town where those expenses are steadily rising. This job for them is just a resume filler though they aren't even allowed, due to NDA, to specify exactly what they do (what software or skills they use) or who they do it for when they update their resumes so that before the end of their one year contracts they can find a real career-type job.
It is a great update to a product that did originally suck though. It isn't Apple employees who are doing the actual work. They're the supervisors.
If it's just a data entry or "look at this picture and type down the name of the restaurant" job, then I'd say $20 is pretty good. If it's actual software engineering then yeah it's pretty terrible pay.
They had no place to go but up. That first version was absolutely embarrassing. I'm honestly surprised they were allowed to make it this far. To this day, I still do not use Apple Maps. As much as they try to get me to use it with all of the iOS embedding they've done, I still won't use it.
Apple Maps is a lot cleaner but the only thing missing was the quality of the actual maps. Hopefully that has changed now.
It's true that Google gets to see them, but Apple is no better in that regard: they store your collections on their servers too (where else would they store them?).
Maps keeps your personal data in sync across all your devices using end-to-end encryption. Your Significant Locations and collections are encrypted end-to-end so Apple cannot read them. And when you share your ETA with other Maps users, Apple can’t see your location.
Other useful sections on that page worth reading: "Location Fuzzing", "Random Identifiers", and "(on-device) Personalization"
Don't spread misinformation on privacy, it'll mislead people into sharing too much data.
I would have assumed that shared collections with a group of iCloud accounts would be e2e encrypted like iMessage groups are e2e encrypted. Glad to revisit that assumption.
Disc: Googler but nowhere close to Maps.
Regarding the prompt, it's always on in the search screen but starting a search makes it go away.
Apple maps may not be quite as good (the lack of cycling in my neck of the woods is annoying) but at least it's not trying to crash my car.
"We've found you a faster route. Switching in 10 seconds if you don't press 'no thanks'..."
Come on, Google, there's a semi truck braking in front of me and I'm trying to make sure it's safe to change lanes, can this wait?
But the "is [reported hazard] still here?" bubbles don't bother me as much, since they go away after a few seconds. I think all of the cues are intended for passengers who are navigating for someone else, but the developers should keep in mind that some people use their phones as a standalone GPS navigator.
In the old days of Macromedia Freehand and Adobe Illustrator, each version would add features and updates that would make it slightly better than the other. I would use it until the other came out with their new version. It was a constant ping pong/leapfrog of competing products trying to win until Adobe ultimately won outright. In my testing, not once has Apple Maps leapfrogged to be the leading app.
Look at the previous coverage on this blog - https://www.justinobeirne.com/
"Apple completed the rollout of this new Maps experience in the United States and will begin rolling it out across Europe in the coming months."
Of course, it's much easier to copy features than innovate, the latter takes years of UX research, while the former can simply just take all the lessons learned and implement the final iteration. That being said, it sounds like Apple has invested big time on their Maps team, doing so much is so little time is truly impressive.
As if the quality of the town they got sent to is somehow relevant?
You enter 1234 East Main Street and it sends you to 1234 West Main Street.
I've had this happen to me multiple times in both Minneapolis and Albuquerque. Strangely, it only seems to happen while in foot, not while driving.
Also search still works better in google maps. Apple Maps doesn’t find the Office Depot near me but one 100 miles away for example.
It used to be that you could buy a mapping software and install it on your PDA/Pocket PC and it would run fine despite a CPU speed in the megahertz.
Nowadays offline maps is some niche advanced feature despite even low-end devices have enough processing power to come preinstalled with an offline map.
The maps sync on a regular basis, it's got detailed information about businesses including hours open, and it will route you different ways based on anticipated traffic at that time of day. It's also surprisingly not niche, as the app automatically sets up zones for places you visit frequently; odds are the majority of people use it without even realizing it.
I used that PDA software back in the day, and frankly it was pretty lacking. Route finding never took that much CPU. We moved to the cloud because the benefits of serving the data vastly outweighs the drawbacks for most people.
It's a local service running on your device that handled offline data updates (all data packs are generated from SOM data) and then provides various services (routing/tiles/geocoding/advanced PoI search) based on this offline data to navigation apps running on the device.
I really nice concept IMHO, but I'm a bit biased as I'm the author of one of the navigation apps (modRana) that make use of OSM Scout Server if available on the device. :)
Back to waze i went.
Once you do so, you can select the wrong turn/other problem from the list of steps and describe the problem.
I'm no fan of Apple but I'd hardly call it's release disastrous.
You can see similar assumptions in how Siri is designed. (“Users only speak one language at a time”) or the effectiveness of multilanguage support in autocorrect. Most people outside north america use their own language + english fairly frequently. At least those in apple’s customer demographic.
Bicycle directions are more challenging than directions for cars, public transit, and walking. I’m just speaking from my own personal experience, here. In every city I’ve lived in, I’ve had to test out different bicycle commuting routes until I found one which I liked. Walking and driving I will just take the fastest route and be done with it. Everyone has different preferences for bicycling for how much elevation climb they can handle, how much traffic they tolerate, etc.
Depending on your location, pedestrian traffic, streets, street traffic, etc. It might be best for you to be on the sidewalk. Or maybe you should instead be on the road since the road is only 25mph and there's pedestrians on the sidewalk. Maybe there's a bike lane, maybe there isn't. Maybe a town has a law saying you HAVE to bike on the road.
Are you allowed to cut through parking lots? Is it a dirt road? Can everyone's bikes handle dirt roads? What if it just rained, cars can still cross a wet dirt road, but I'd rather take a different route if possible on a bike.
That's not including the terrain challenges (which google seems to incorporate). I'd far rather take a route that takes an extra 5 minutes and is basically level vs a route that saves time but requires you to go down and uphill. Heck even wind conditions change can change the "optimal route" in some cases.
I think that's usually the case.
This page  says:
> The law in most areas of the country require bicycles to follow the same rules of the road as other motor vehicles. In essence, riding your bike down the sidewalk is the same as if you hopped the curb and started rolling it in your car.
> Bicycles may be ridden upon a sidewalk, but cyclists must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and are required to give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
And to make it even more complicated:
> Further, official traffic control devices or local ordinances may restrict bicycles on sidewalks in some areas.
i.e. riding on the sidewalk is more of an exception, and is typically allowed for kids.
This is pretty common, I believe. I looked up my local (Cambridge MA) laws and they say the same thing (and have a list of the sidewalks you can't bike on), and New York state looks the same.
In the dot.ny.gov FAQs, they explicitly say that sidewalk riding is legal unless posted, but is specifically intended more for young children.
They have elevation, private/public roads, road surface, bike lanes, etc, and routers can take it into account.
Of course, that doesn't really take into account varying laws, but that might be reflected in the maps themselves (private/public places, bikes allowed/disallowed, etc).
See also https://www.opencyclemap.org
They use the designations “town” and “city” as a way of ranking places in terms of importance.
Here in the UK that designation is almost arbitrary.
There are several large towns with greater population and navigational importance than surrounding smaller cities.
All the commercial map providers, including Apple Maps, grok that. Only opensteetmap seems still rigidly to the town < city thing. Would be much better if they could use population instead.
If the OSM project is just about data then it’s doing a great job.
If it’s about a usable navigation experience too then it’s failing because in the UK it doesn’t take local politics into account when deciding what to display.
FWIW OSM was founded and is still heavily influenced by the UK. As a UK user I like it that ceremonial cities are tagged and displayed as such. YMMV.
What I have a big problem with is that major towns, by both population and local importance, are left off the map until you zoom to a low level.
I find this annoying enough that I actively avoid OSM based sites because it. It makes using OSM difficult to see major towns in relation other major cities.
Meanwhile there’ll be a tiny ceremonial city with a huge label over it.
Depending on location indeed. The majority of US states still make it blanket illegal to bicycle on a sidewalk, codified into early highway laws. (It's also probable the last time those laws were effectively enforced was somewhere in the middle of the 20th Century.) There are states where it is illegal, but individual counties or cities (or strange in-betweens like townships) override their state laws and allow it. I don't know of any examples of the opposite where a state allows it, but individual towns forbid it, but I wouldn't be surprised.
- For a limited number of cities, determine which streets the city lists as having separated bike lanes, painted bike lanes, or city-designated "bike friendly" streets. Mark them on the map appropriately in a different map overlay (or on the transit overlay)
- Bicycle directions prioritize those streets.
It's not perfect, but this would be enough for me to use the app.
Most of the painted bike lanes I see in suburban Washington are painted in some of the least safe bike routes. There's a ton of bike lanes that are just painted along major thoroughfares with actual top speeds of 40 or 45 miles per hour.
They should really do it by speed limit and presence of features that obstruct car traffic. Streets that are a pain in the ass to drive on are the best streets to bike on.
Even some of the Bike Routes in Seattle are on roads that I wouldn't feel safe biking on because traffic typically clocks at 10 or 15 MPH higher than the speed limit around the curves on the route.
I run cycle.travel (https://cycle.travel/map) which offers super-fast bike directions in Europe, North America and Australia/NZ. It has a number of unique features under the hood that I think lift the quality of its routes above other similar sites (but then I would say that). Always happy to entertain offers if Apple want to buy me...