Photographers, Instagrammers: Stop Being So Selfish and Disrespectful - <AUTHOR> https://petapixel.com/2019/07/22/photographers-instagrammers-stop-being-so-dmn-selfish-and-disrespectful/ <comment><USER3> I used to volunteer at a heritage railway in Northern Ireland. We had several old restored trains and we went to great lengths to make the station areas look authentically old. Naturally photographers loved it.

Most photographers were Okay and respected the rules, but some some just refused and couldn't handle being called out. For example one rule was do not get in train cabs, unless by prior arrangement - which involved doing a safety briefing etc. Still some photographers just did their own thing. Some would jump on to the footplates of in service steam locomotives to get their shot, that was dangerous but they didn't care. I was driving a diesel railcar and had a passenger bang on the cab door so he could take shots from within the cab. He kept banging for about 10 minutes until we got back to the station and was then had a go at me for refusing him access.

Another strict rule was no tripods on the platforms. It was dangerous as they created a tripping hazard and just ruined the atmosphere for other visitors. But come a sunny day or special event the forest of tripods would be out in force.

And the worst of all was the ones who would walk off the end of platforms and setup alongside the railway line. Most wouldn't even bother to wear a hi-viz vest either. Completely dangerous, but they didn't care they just wanted their special shot.

These weren't just our rules, many were in place because of laws and insurance requirements. We didn't want accidents, nor did we want a few visitors to ruin the atmosphere for others. But when we called called out such people we often got abuse, which would then be followed up by long rants about how unaccommodating we were in various photography and railway forums.

The thing is we would allow photographers to access cabs, use tripods and go alongside the line - so long as they arranged it with us first. And during special events we would often have an hour set aside specifically for photographers to go to town. But for some that wasn't enough.

For a lot of heritage railways in the UK and Ireland the misbehavior of some photographers has got so bad they have a blanket ban on cameras with remediable lenses.

<comment><USER4> Indirectly related, living in the UK there seems to be a growing culture of 'fuck you' in this country. Not a lack of etiquette or the trivial please and thank-you, those I can do without, you can still be sweary and abrupt and still considerate, I mean a fundamental selfishness. It seems to be bigger among younger people, 20s to 30s, and I will emphasize that it's _uncommon_ and that the great majority of people at any age still behave _very decently_ , but I can feel it.

<comment> J-dawg Damn, I've noticed it too.

At these point I feel compelled to remember that quote from Socrates about how the kids are all rude and disrespectful these days. So maybe nothing ever changes and we're just getting old and grumpy.

But your comment definitely rings true. It's something hard to pin down but I notice it all the time.

<comment><USER5> > At these point I feel compelled to remember that quote from Socrates about > how the kids are all rude and disrespectful these days. So maybe nothing > ever changes and we're just getting old and grumpy.

It's this. Sorry to break it to you. People also change their behavior _to you_ based on your age. As a single example, as you age and slow down, younger, faster folks will be more frequently annoyed with having to dodge past you on the sidewalk, which will predispose them to be more rude around you in general. It's a whole complicated host of things, and as you say, it's been true since the beginning of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> PLEASE change the URL from the blog spam Petapixel site to the photographer's own!

[https://www.paulreiffer.com/2019/07/photographers- instagramm...](https://www.paulreiffer.com/2019/07/photographers- instagrammers-stop-being-so-damn-selfish-and-disrespectful/)

<comment><USER7> The author's blog says:

 _All site content © Paul Reiffer 2019 and may not be used without permission_

And Petapixel's post credits him, and includes in the end:

 _About the author: (...) This article was also published here [link to author 's blog]._

So, I assume it has been authorized by the author? Does he prefer to have a link to his own blog directly?

<comment><USER6> It has been authorized. The deal works like this: Petapixel pays nothing and the links in the footnotes hopefully drives some traffic to the photographer's site and social media. In this game Petapixel is the influencer that asks for free ice cream in exchange for an Instagram post. Blog spam 2.0.

I don't see why one wouldn't want to link the source and at the same time support the writer directly instead of hoping a fraction of the readers will find and follow the links in the footnotes on Petapixel.

<comment><USER8> _> Blog spam 2.0. [...] I don't see why one wouldn't want to link the source and at the same time support the writer directly_

I wasn't the one who downvoted your comment but in this particular case I disagree. I wouldn't call this "blog spam". The petapixel post is more like the author strategically choosing _syndication_ [1].

As a reader of _articles_ , I find the petalpixel url more relevant than the photographer's own website. After I'm done reading the 1 article, I can see more "trending" articles on the righthand side to read more.

In contrast, the photographer's website is less relevant because I'm not interested in buying prints that cost $1100 to $13000 USD or contacting him to book luxury expeditions.

Just wanted to provide a different perspective and why I think the Petapixel url is more appropriate for the HN audience. In fact, sending a potential "HN hug of death" directly to the author's website with virtually no one "adding to shopping cart" while using up his hosting bandwidth seems to be the _opposite_ of supporting the photographer.

[1] [https://indieweb.org/POSSE](https://indieweb.org/POSSE)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _" I had a privileged life and I got lucky and I'm unhappy. They say it's like the "me generation." It's not. The arrogance is taught, or it was cultivated. It's self-conscious, that's what it is; conscious of self. Social media is just the market's answer to a generation that demanded to perform. So the market said, 'here, perform everything to each other all the time for no reason.' It's prison. It's horrific. It is performer and audience melded together. What do we want more than to lay in our bed at the end of the day and just watch our life as a satisfied audience member?

I know very little about anything, but what I do know is that if you can live your life without an audience you should do it."_

\- Bo Burnham, monologue from the special 'Make happy'.

</comment><comment><USER10> I honestly expected this article to be another "damn kids, get off my lawn" post, but reading it, I 100% agree with the author and I'm kinda horrified to see some of those scenes.

I'm lucky enough to have been to some of those places in the past (Wanaka, Angkor) and while there were some crowds, it wasn't anything like depicted in the article.

It's the essential conundrum of tourism. The more people that go to a place, the more they ruin what made the place special in the first place.

<comment><USER11> I live a couple of hours away from Lake Louise, Alberta [1], which is a really famous photography spot because the lake (and nearby Moraine Lake) have beautiful bright blue colors. You've almost certainly seen one of them in Windows wallpapers, /r/EarthPorn, etc.

A few weeks ago, we had a friend from the US visiting, and we decided to take him there. We hadn't been there in about 10 years now, and it was _insanely_ busy even though it was just a random Wednesday. The road from the town of Lake Louise up to the actual lake was a traffic jam the entire way (about 5km), and there was no parking at all anywhere near the lake or in the town. I ended up having to drop my wife and our friend off at the top and drive back down, then down the highway for almost 10 minutes to the "overflow lot" to find anywhere to park (and it was almost totally full too, even though it's huge).

We've talked to some people about it since, and apparently that's just how busy it is all the time now. The amount of over-tourism to some of these Instagram-famous places is getting ridiculous, and (like it goes over in the article) they're just really not able to handle it and it turns into a huge mess of people behaving selfishly because once they're there, they're _not_ leaving without the photos they want.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Louise_(Alberta)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Louise_\(Alberta\))

<comment><USER12> I spent a week at Lake Louis in winter 2017. There was hardly anyone there, even around the Fairmont! Maybe 5 cars in the huge lot right by the water. Just a few dolts trying to take selfies in the middle of the frozen lake.

Shame that it's usually swamped but it makes sense, it's a beautiful area. Maybe try again in the winter?

<comment><USER13> I was there in the winter once too (to ski), the blue lake was frozen though, covered in snow, and the entire week the temperatures never exceeded 0 Fahrenheit!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sums up everything I detest about photography and mainly typical instagrammers. You have the same problem where I am in Bali - <USER2> instagrammers using the farmers rice fields for their selfies, whilst the farmers are breaking their backs.

I wonder how they'd feel if tables were turned - farmers all photographing young people on their laptops in cafes etc.

<comment><USER15> On a recent trip to some more remote areas of Southeast Asia, I had this exact experience.

Since westerners were a rare sight in many of the villages I visited, my friends and I found ourselves _constantly_ being photographed, with the local teens and even older adults alike all posing in selfies with us in the background. I'd say we were photographed roughly 20-30 times per day, for the the month we were there. I'm not kidding.

I'm sure we looked like clowns to them with our height and big noses. I found it hilarious and am glad I brought some amusement to these folks.

Side note: I see every person on this thread thinks they aren't part of the problem. It's the _other_ people of course! Tourists complaining about other tourists has a real irony to it. Rich people getting mad they have to share the worlds treasures with a growing population of other rich people. Boo boo. A certain percentage of the population is always going to be assholes, whether they live in a place or are just visiting. Instagram isn't the root cause to why people suck, this too shall pass.

<comment><USER16> > Instagram isn't the root cause to why people suck.

That's even more depressing (if true) than this abomination of "social networks" that we are seeing right now.

But still, _even_ if your point might be true, we should stop giving people easy ways to be degenerates. There should be repercussions or something, but good luck codifying it into a law :)

It's a difficult problem.

<comment><USER17> > this abomination of "social networks" that we are seeing ... we should stop > giving people easy ways to be degenerates. There should be repercussions or > something, but good luck codifying it into a law

You don't always need laws to stop bad behavior. Influential social shame and scorn are often just as effective.

<comment><USER18> It would be interesting experiment to link the article as comments in the lavander selfies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is as old as photography is a thing. I've been to that area in France many times in my life. My parents actually lived there for a while after they retired and it used to be our default vacation destination when I was young. It's been a popular destination for tourists quite long and tourism is a big part of the local economy. Vincent van Gogh did some selfies there way back before photography was a thing (with a paint brush). The landscape is pretty (particularly the lavender fields), the weather is nice, and the food/wine are awesome. It's a nice place to go. Despite the tourists.

Most of the lavender grown there is used to produce the lavender infused tourist junk you can find all over that area. It's literally the primary reason for that farm to be farming the stuff. So, having the odd tourist come along and taking some photos is maybe a necessary evil.

Tourists misbehaving and spoiling things has been a thing for as long as tourism has been a thing. The only thing that is worse is locals destroying their environment to draw in yet more tourists and squeeze every drop of revenue from them. Many idyllic places have long turned into package tourism hell with lots of cheap constructions, masses of tourists getting drunk and stuffing their face with junk food and nothing authentic whatsoever anywhere in sight. Arles where Van Gogh used to hang out is a good example.

<comment><USER20> > This is as old as photography is a thing.

It sure is, but modern tech greatly increased the phenomenon. Old tech made photography way less interesting for narcissistic people. It was hard, expensive, took time to develop, you most likely had no audience if you weren't a professional. Now you can take a snapshit on your budget dslr, send it via bluetooth to your ipad, edit it right there and put it on instagram for free, some even get paid if they include a watch or a pair of shoe in the pic...

Sure in the bunch you have a few artistic people, but most of it is the same exact picture of the same exact thing. All of it for imaginary internet points. We don't have to watch black mirror anymore we're living in a lame and slow version of it already. Comparing Van Gogh to that is a bit of a stretch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> One trick I learned a while ago is that stepping back as far as possible and taking pictures of people taking pictures is far more interesting than yet another picture of the same thing.

There are only so many interesting photos of the Mona Lisa. But there are an infinite number of interesting photos of people maniacally taking photos of the Mona Lisa. If you're lucky, you might snap a pic of an instagrammer falling off a cliff, or getting hit by a truck.

<comment><USER22> I have a video of a woman holding a dog out over the edge of the Grand Canyon and having their friend take a photo, presumably trying to re-enact the Lion King scene. The level of absurdity on display is much more impressive than yet another picture of the Grand Canyon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It feels more and more that people go to cool places just to prove they have as many resources as their peers.

Travel and social media is just an extension of "keeping up with the Jones's" but on a personal identity level- only at the cost of whatever destruction you are willing to put our planet through, be it that new camera you bought, or the jet fuel you paid to burn.

I couldn't help but feel guilty on the way to my last international trip- the homeless do less damage to the planet than I do.

<comment> word-reader Not nearly enough has been written about "travel as status-seeking". It is for some a way to portray that you're not materialistic, but still dunk on all the poors and other outgroup members while blowing thousands of dollars on what is ultimately a luxury. The sub-category of "travel as wasteful mating signal & ritual" deserves another novel on top of this.

It didn't help that for several years (though it has thankfully tapered off) there was a constant stream of "lifestyle" articles proclaiming that mass tourism "experiences" to capture some photo-totem were the scientifically confirmed path to happiness.

<comment> J-dawg Absolutely. It seems to have become popular to value "experiences over things" as if that's somehow virtuous and makes you better than materialistic people who just want to accumulate stuff.

It's really just another branch of the same kind of materialism.

The mating signal thing is crazy too. I recently dabbled in dating apps (hopefully, never again). It seems virtually every woman on there is obsessed with travel (has "wanderlust", or wants to visit "30 countries before 30", or "couldn't live without my passport", along with a bunch of photos of them posing in front of familiar stock-photo tourist sites).

It's almost always like this: an obsession with _travel itself_ , rather than a passion for a particular culture or region or language or activity that requires travel. (Which might not really be any better, but I'd identify with it a lot more easily).

What's driving this? Is it covert (or subconscious) signalling that they want a mate with the resources to fund this lifestyle? Or simply a feeling that this is expected of them to seem fun and interesting?

As you said, not nearly enough has been written. I wish a great writer with the requisite knowledge of culture and psychology would dive into this.

<comment><USER24> This is the first time I've ever head the term "wanderlust" and it sincerely hope its the last.

<comment> J-dawg My sincere apologies

<comment><USER25> For knowing and using words?

<comment> J-dawg For using words that make people cringe

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So, NZ is on the receiving end of some of this, and here's my opinion:

* Our popular areas are completely overrun during tourist season - I personally think not much fun for tourists or locals (unless a crowd is good e.g. party zones)

* As a local, I can usually find something way better when I travel in NZ that isn't overrun by tourists (e.g. from article, that one lavender farm in France is overrun, but I bet there are plenty nearby that are not).

* I personally love the vibe of the high tourist areas. Generally having tourists is good for nightlife, great for meeting other cultures, and tourists create heaps of economic opportunities (very often in places that would struggle otherwise).

* When travelling overseas, I skip anything "must see" that is in a guide or otherwise recommended (unless you want a tickbox or it is totally off-season). I go to small towns that are in non-tourist areas, and find my own awesome shit.

* When travelling, try to meet locals in a low-density tourist area. You get to see the real country. In reverse, I try to be super welcoming to travellers I meet (I have no problem giving a hitchhiker a room in my home if they pass my sniff test).

* NZ isn't a big country, but there is a huge amount of amazing places to visit everywhere, if you have your own transport and more than a few weeks to travel.

* Try to avoid staying in tourist high density areas. Avoid the easy tourist transport means, avoid the tourist backpackers or hotels.

* Yes, tourists often leave a mess (NZ has a real problem with tourists travelling by vehicle shitting everywhere), but the benefits of tourists really outweigh the downsides IMHO

* I would love NZ to introduce a visa fee per travelling day - that pays for cleaning and pays for free entry to high traffic tourist destinations. We should be striving to attract the high value tourist, and not nickel and dime them once they are here. Tourism can be a Veblen good.

Summary: there are places that are tourist destinations, but there are heaps of places that tourists don't go to that are incredible.

<comment><USER27> > When travelling overseas, I skip anything "must see" that is in a guide or > otherwise recommended (unless you want a tickbox or it is totally off- > season). I go to small towns that are in non-tourist areas, and find my own > awesome shit.

These things are kind of like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian: famous for being famous, not for any actual intrinsic qualities they may have.

There are exceptions. For example Venice is _VERY_ touristic, but also for good reasons IMHO.

I was actually in Wanaka last December, and yeah, it's a funny looking tree, but to go out of your way for it? Yeh nah. There were many more memorable/fun aspects of our Wanaka outing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Took my teenage sons to Paris for their first trip abroad last week. Even _they_ were shaking their heads at the ridiculous lengths to which people were going for a selfish pic:

— wearing wedding dresses into the Sacré Cœur and marching past all the no- photo signs to the _altar_ for a fake I-got-married-here pic

— posing unnaturally with rapid-change outfits and accessories in the middle of _street traffic_ on the Pont d'Iéna facing the Eiffel Tower and at l'Arc de Triomphe, ignoring all the honks and drivers and pedestrians alike yelling at them, until a police car stopped and turned on its sirens

— couples dragging strollers with infants and toddlers up to the Mona Lisa to take selfies

— throngs elbowing for position to take a selfie in front of a piece of art—and then moving on without even spending _a single moment_ contemplating or appreciating the artwork

We saw a dozen or more such scenes every day. It was awful.

<comment><USER20> > wearing wedding dresses into the Sacré Cœur and marching past all the no- > photo signs to the altar for a fake I-got-married-here pic

I was hiking to a remote castle recently, 30 min drive + mud roads remote, I got there and saw a parked car (there is no parking spots btw), immediately thought "eh, you got to be lazy to come here by car, half the fun is the walk". Five min later I stumbled upon a couple in suit/wedding dress and two photographers, I think I physically cringed at the sight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This just sounds like poor law enforcement to me. Stopping your car on the side of the road is typically legal. Photographing something from public property is legal in the US. What isn't legal is littering, trespassing, and theft. If you were there to damage the lavender because you thought that would be a fun thing to do, that to me is the same as being there because you want to take a selfie. You should be arrested and charged with trespassing. The fact that this isn't happening is a failure of law enforcement, not a failure of social media. (Though my own photographic philosophy is that a picture with people in it is ruined, I realize that not everyone agrees.)

<comment><USER30> In addition to this, I wonder if the farmers could set up props to discourage photography and sabotage the shots. Ugly banners, balloons, drones with ribbons, blaring offensive music, signs with semi-offensive verbiage. Or boxes of rotten fish to stink up the side of the road.

<comment><USER31> Thats the equivalent of asking girls to dress unsexily to prevent harrassment/rape. Those farmers have a right to maintain their beautiful and appealing environments without having them messed with by tourists and other idiots.

<comment><USER30> They make money from selling lavender. Not from having pretty fields. If the police won't do their jobs, you can take matters into your own hands.

<comment><USER31> Why buy lavender if you can just be a photographer/instagrammer and steal them? Pretty fields are what brings potential buyers to their farm in the first place, no?

<comment><USER32> Have you ever travelled to a farm because its pretty to buy their lavender? If I buy lavender, its because I want lavender, not because the farm is pretty (and Ill probably buy it from a shop and not the farm directly)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I went to what can only be described as an "Instagram trap" earlier this month. It was the Rose Mansion exhibit (?) in NYC, I can only describe it as a mix between a fun house where the rooms are explicitly designed for Instagram and a cut rate wine tour. [0]

I sense a market for a consulting firm that specializes in managing photoshoots at locations like the one in the post explicitly for Instagram.

0: [https://www.rosewinemansion.com/about-2019](https://www.rosewinemansion.com/about-2019)

<comment><USER34> I feel like the San Francisco ice cream museum is like that. It's ostensibly a museum about ice cream, but it's basically just a whole bunch of really weirdly designed rooms that people take selfies in and post all over Instagram, Tinder, Facebook, everywhere. Apparently they made quite a bit of money doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://instagram.com/insta_repeat](https://instagram.com/insta_repeat)

And here is the end result. This account basically takes Instagram photos of the exact same location/style and groups them together. It's kind of mind blowing!

<comment><USER35> My personal favorite in this vein: [https://thekinspiracy.tumblr.com/](https://thekinspiracy.tumblr.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I used to think photography was an interesting hobby, not for me, however.

Now, after the proliferation of cheap DSLRs I now think photography is the most obnoxious thing ever. Now ever asshole imagines themselves as a photographer and acts like a dick to get that one picture. I was out with a wannabe photographer friend and watched her climb over a safety barrier and dangerously close to the edge of a cliff in order to take a photo. I was shocked.

This one made me so sad: [https://www.instagram.com/publiclandshateyou/p/Bu_qnY7hjhQ/?...](https://www.instagram.com/publiclandshateyou/p/Bu_qnY7hjhQ/?hl=en)

<comment><USER36> As someone who's doing photography as a side business - so much this. Actually, let's add "I've got a DSLR, so I have to produce good photos" to the list. In reality though most of them have no sense for the moment or good composition.

And the worst part is: "my $relative has a DSLR and he'd shoot for free, do it for free and you'll get exposure".

Sigh.

<comment><USER37> Interesting comment to read on HN where a lot of people want their software to be free too. :) Just sayin'..

But yeah, I get your point.. its super annoying when people do those things or when they say "you must have a nice camera" instead of complimenting your skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I just returned from a trip to Washington D.C. I'm an amateur photographer[1] - I don't get paid for my photos, I do it for fun. One thing I noticed in D.C. when visiting monuments and places like the Library of Congress (which is a stunning building inside), was the sheer number of people standing around taking selfies in these places. In confined spaces (Library of Congress) it was difficult to take pictures because there were so many people taking selfies. And not just a single one - it's almost always a series of them in various poses and facial expressions. It was quite annoying.

I tried to temper my annoyance by reminding myself that they have just as much right to be there as I do - these are public places after all. What stood out though is the behavior described in this article, which is the complete focus on themselves and no awareness or concern for the location or the people around them who might also want to take a picture - or even just enjoy the place they're visiting. I didn't see anything like the destruction and theft described in this article, but that's likely just because of the nature of the places I visited (lots of armed guards).

I worry that we're allowing (and reinforcing) some horrible behaviors, and wonder what kind of people they will grow up to be. Narcissism is a harsh label, but I don't have a better one.

[1] [http://larrywright.me/photo/](http://larrywright.me/photo/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Ive been curious, without knowing how to prove it or not, If social media/instagram is really a significant contributor to over tourism? I guess I have a hard believing its not coincidental.

People have always taken pictures around the world. But recently travel is becoming a lot cheaper, a lot safer, developing countries are developing so they are easier to get to, its easier to get to far corners of the world, chinese are traveling more, americans are pushing off buying homes and having kids until later in life leaving them free to travel. The world is just more populated now too.

<comment><USER40> Probably something to do with the ubiquity of cameras these days, as well. Anecdatally, I remember when my grandfather bought a Canon A-1 in the late 70s and it was A BIG DEAL. While lots of people had Polaroids and other low-level stuff, this was the equivalent of a prosumer camera, at the time and it was expensive for the time, too.

The slides he took were for his own amusement, and the family's, just like most other people's photos. They weren't shared instantly with the world. That was very much a professional's conceit.

Now, everyone with a phone has a camera that's very high resolution and usually internet-connected. The cameras keep getting better (for no good reason that I can tell) while the phone itself remains relatively unchanged. Sure, it can run more apps, so it's now pretty much a personal computer that incidentally includes a phone,, but because we feel the need to be always connected, we've always got a camera.

Consequently, everyone feels the need to overshare every moment of their life, as if they will somehow become important, or that we'll magically care. It's too cheap and it's too easy to spam the world with the beautiful moments that, incidentally, are just like everyone else's beautiful moments.

My grandfather had a probably almost-unique collection of all 250-plus courthouses of Texas at the time, without competing with anyone to get them, just because he thought it was a neat idea. Now, there are probably hundreds of that collection, produced by ridulously competitive amateurs who want to be Instagram-famous.

<comment><USER41> I remember when people would joke about the Japanese taking so many pictures. Today many, perhaps most, put that level of photo snapping to shame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I mean this type of photography is a style right? Like the more people do it the more cliched it will get and then it will go out of style right? Every generation wants to do something new.

<comment><USER31> We need to make it so __cringe __to behave like this that people will stop doing it naturally to distance themselves from _those people_. I already look down on people like this myself. People in the West do not utilize societal shaming enough I feel, so much focus on individuality that people are forced to tolerate that some people are terrible humans because otherwise they'll be on the side of NAZIS or whatever for wanting people to be civilized.

I think it's already trending that way, but the effects are slow to arrival.

<comment><USER16> > People in the West do not utilize societal shaming enough I feel,

Critical point. Only when people start to think about this topic, they'll realize that shaming was invented for a reason, and a great reason: it works. It kept order into civilizations for millennia.

<comment><USER43> Really that is a very idealized version of social shaming. It sucks and hasn't been focused where there is any actual utility but instead the stupidest fucking most injust things. A young woman has a naked body under her clothes! Shame and forced resignation from pagents regardless of source. The twisted values of shame culture include major "not unless you get caught" fundamentally. To the point of absurdities where in Japan it is shameful to be identified drunk despite getting smashed being the company norm. And that is before getting into the sociopaths behind these social order ideals.

Really fuck social order and fuck social shaming - may they die and stay dead and buried and we have to deal with petty problems instead of this bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> My personal favorite is this instagram profile making fun of influencers taking photos and videos in the famous Rue Crémieux street in Paris.

[https://www.instagram.com/clubcremieux/](https://www.instagram.com/clubcremieux/)

<comment><USER24> Do these people not realize that they are at someone's house, not a god damn movie set??? How could one be so obnoxious?

<comment><USER45> Instagram has made any setting a movie set, that's the implied value of all these pictures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> [https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/) is one of my favorite subreddits when I need to be reminded about all this craziness.

</comment><comment><USER47> People will be people (unfortunately). But what I don't understand is:

1) Why doesn't the farmer call the police on them for trespassing? And post clear warning signs explaining the penalties... as farmers and other people with large areas of private property have been doing forever

2) And/or make money off it -- charge $$$ for exclusive use of the field for 30 min, do your photoshoot, trample all the lavender you need because you'll be paying top dollar for it

Farmers deal with all sorts of pests threatening their crops, this is just one more. And they're businesspeople. I'm certainly not defending people's bad behavior, but this situation in particular seems pretty manageable.

</comment><comment><USER48> Some months back when this was posted [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17944934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17944934) , I thought about doing a POC about this topic. You could scrap a lot about tourist data from state/regional/communal websites and make travel suggestion for the least tourist plagued locations in a given area. The problem in the long run is the more successfull you are, the worse the experience will be, in short term tourism/vacation is to crowded currently to get it flying.

<comment><USER43> That would probably be better on tourist economies if it took off and had influence at least - a more even level of flow as tourists choose between their preferences is more sustainable and less likely to have nasty "invested to handle the flow better and they are gone" shocks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> > But this was crazy. And rude. And selfish. And utterly, disgustingly, > narcissistic.

That pretty much sums up 2/3 of our society. Dealing with stupidity of the masses will be one of the bigger challenges of the future.

<comment><USER50> I think of it more as a continuing challenge. There is just bigger groups of us now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> > _I've seen photographers edge further and further into the water – ruining > the view for others, shouting at kayakers who "dare" to exercise their right > to paddle around the lake while drifting into their shot_

It's ironic that the author is defending the rights of kayakers to do what they enjoy in the lake, while simultaneously berating photographers and "instagrammers" for "ruining the view for others" with their mere presence.

The article does raise many good points. Fences, property-rights, and rules should be respected. But much of the article comes across as paternalistic virtue signaling. Anyone's choice of hobbies or livelihood can be psychoanalyzed as being selfish or narcissistic or parasitic. The author loves to shame instagrammers for being driven by "likes" and "attention", and I'm sure someone else out there would love to shame the author for profiting off of nature instead of toiling as an unknown environmental activist. Unless you're a psychologist or mental health professional, perhaps we should all just let others enjoy life in any way they want, without feeling the need to judge and condescend to them.

<comment><USER52> I'm not sure the author was berating the photographers for ruining the view for others. I read it as revealing the hypocrisy of the photographers shouting at kayakers for doing the thing they were currently doing themselves.

<comment><USER51> > _From a beach with a few locals walking through each evening, to now, what > has become a honeypot for crowds of photographers getting in the way every > "golden hour"..._

> _I've seen photographers edge further and further into the water – ruining > the view for others..._

> _For instagrammers, and wannabe "influencers" – learn that there are people > on the planet who might not be interested in YOU. They might want to see the > view without you in it. They might even want to just sit and enjoy a scene > without a camera (shock!). While it's easy to get wrapped up in this stuff > online, they have every right (or maybe even more) to enjoy a place without > it being ruined by your need to be "liked" by people you'll never meet._

It sure sounds like he's berating photographers for ruining the view for others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> For places like this, we need to enforce trespassing laws. Use it as revenue to pay for more enforcement of those laws. For public spaces ruined by the photographers, pass laws requiring licenses to photograph and distribute it (where possible). Make other rules for public spaces to keep them useful to the public for things other than photography (no mounting a camera within 50 feet of the water, for example).

</comment><comment><USER54> I am disgusted by these people. Absolutely revolted. I understand this is a subjective statement but something inside me recoils at these people,

<comment><USER17> > I am disgusted by these people. Absolutely revolted. I understand this is a > subjective statement but something inside me recoils at these people,

I understand how many can feel that way, but what if these photographers were genuinely interested in the underlying work. They did put in the effort to travel all the way to a farm to check it out. They took pictures of it in appreciation. Maybe they did not know how to properly respect the people and the place, maybe they should be taught rather than chastised.

<comment> VvR-Ox That sounds like a lame excuse - sorry.

Every child knows that you don't do whatever you want on the grounds of other people, in their gardens and homes.

Stop being jerks and just ask people politely if it's ok for them that you take a picture.

Also I don't get how they all need a picture of the same place.

In the end all they do is to deprive themselves from real happiness and the possibility to just enjoy the moment. Their POV changes in the moment they see the world through the lens of their cam and they don't even seem to get this.

<comment><USER55> > _Also I don 't get how they all need a picture of the same place._

It's because they don't care about the place, they care that _they 've_ been there. This is a problem as old as photography; I remember watching tourists on my daily commute coming to the same spots, day in, day out, and shooting the exact same photos of the exact same buildings from the exact same angles. All I could think of is, "your exact photo is on Flickr already in 10 different copies, why are you doing this?!". The rise of social media (Instagram in particular) only made this worse.

<comment> VvR-Ox That's true.

I think they are harming themselves by doing this because they can't really enjoy the moment and just "be" there.

I rarely take pictures because I always think "there's already awesome pics of this on the net" and also when I'm back I don't want to overwhelm people who want to see them with a collection of "just 1000 photos of me in front of the Louvre".

Of course I'd love to have a picture of me standing in front of Taj Mahal but in the end it's not so important. The pictures people haven't seen yet are much more interesting (to me), especially places where tourists don't want to be or perspectives they shouldn't see.

E.g. the "Golden Beaches" in Bulgaria. Stay in the tourist zone and you'll have the typical beaches, hotels, bars etc. But the exciting part of the area is when you leave this "paradise" and see the massive destruction tourism, the hotel lobby etc. bring to nature and the people.

Seeing these scenes changed my mind and I realized I'd never want to do "all inclusive" at the places where all people go again.

I think people need more stable personalities so they can break out of their "hive-mind-thinking" and start sensing their environment and enjoying themselves without the constant feedback of "the hive". Behaviour like this reminds me of the Lemmings and the Borg.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I think this will be a passing craze.

Younger instagram users are much less interested in showing off perfect shots than their millennial predecessors.

</comment><comment><USER16> > These are people so obsessed with their own sense of self-importance for the > sake of a few instant "likes" on their social media profile that they find > it perfectly acceptable to trespass, steal, disrespect the workers and their > land – all in the name of "influencing".

...

>They'd damaged the land. They'd stolen the owner's products. They'd ruined the fields that had been tended to with hard work for months. But even the farmer's final attempt to put and end to it wasn't enough – they wanted more.

Oh, can't wait the day when we are going to look back at "social media" platforms and go: "what the hell were these creatures thinking?"

I really think social media is one of the worst tools for the human psyche ever conceived. It's a net loss for sure.

It's addictive and also messes up with dopamine generation. Not to mention the vanity/envy aspect of it: people comparing to selective representation of other people. It's remarkably insane when you think about it.

Maybe it's best not to think about it :)

</comment><comment><USER57> Part of me thinks this is nothing new. Sure, social media has changed the flavour slightly but tourist honeypots have existed since forever... and in a way, they work. A huge number of people go to the Lake District and don't leave Ambleside; Ambleside prospers with its cafes and outdoor shops and the rest of the area is _slightly_ less overrun for it. This was the case long before we even had digital cameras.

You'd think social media would disperse the honeypots as people spread out to emulate photos scattered over a greater number of locations, yet I gather from national park authorities etc it has the opposite effect entirely.

If we're not going to change human nature then I think that implies the opposite policy on "ticketed locations" mentioned by the OP: _do_ charge money at honeypot spots, and reinvest it to repair the damage.

</comment><comment><USER58> Is this a recent phenomenon? I traveled to Valensole two years ago, and haven't seen anything like this. There were some people taking Instagram shots, of course, myself included, but nothing disrespectful, and certainly nothing like that. What's even the point of being the "influencer", are people looking up to it?

<comment><USER59> > What's even the point of being the "influencer", are people looking up to > it?

Economically, you might get "famous" enough for small brands to send you free stuff to show in the photos, in the long run they want to win the recognition lottery and get more and more famous. It's very self-referencing

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Wow the last photo of Angor Wat is shocking. I actually feel sick and disgusted by looking at this photo. I travelled South East Asia extensively in 2012 when Instagram was not a thing (yet) and honestly this place was almost empty and one of the most magical things I've ever seen. If I was to go there today and this would be my experience then I would have never gotten the travel bug. What's wrong with these people, honestly the majority of people are just dumb sheep, no self respect, no dignity, no respect for our planet and other living beings. Nobody with a tiny bit of self respect would put themselves into this crowd just for a narcissistic Instagram photo.

<comment><USER61> So your experience is ok since it happened in 2012. Got it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> this new mindset that you need to spend your money on experiences instead of things is beginning to show its ugly side. I wonder if the carbon and environmental footprint is better or worse than buying goods

</comment><comment><USER63> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_American_(pejorative)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_American_\(pejorative\))

Whenever I see this kinda stuff, I can't help but think of the "Ugly American" trope and how it seems like it's an insanely (and desperate to be) visible minority of the whole world now

<comment><USER64> Neal Stephenson saw this coming nearly 20 years ago, in his essay _In the Beginning... Was the Command Line_ ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Command_Line))

From the section titled "The Interface Culture":

 _We are free and prosperous because we have inherited political and values systems fabricated by a particular set of eighteenth-century intellectuals who happened to get it right. But we have lost touch with those intellectuals, and with anything like intellectualism, even to the point of not reading books any more, though we are literate. We seem much more comfortable with propagating those values to future generations nonverbally, through a process of being steeped in media. Apparently this actually works to some degree, for police in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV cop shows. When it's explained to them that they are in a different country, where those rights do not exist, they become outraged. Starsky and Hutch reruns, dubbed into diverse languages, may turn out, in the long run, to be a greater force for human rights than the Declaration of Independence._

 _A huge, rich, nuclear-tipped culture that propagates its core values through media steepage seems like a bad idea. There is an obvious risk of running astray here. Words are the only immutable medium we have, which is why they are the vehicle of choice for extremely important concepts like the Ten Commandments, the Koran, and the Bill of Rights. Unless the messages conveyed by our media are somehow pegged to a fixed, written set of precepts, they can wander all over the place and possibly dump loads of crap into people's minds._

 _Orlando used to have a military installation called McCoy Air Force Base, with long runways from which B-52s could take off and reach Cuba, or just about anywhere else, with loads of nukes. But now McCoy has been scrapped and repurposed. It has been absorbed into Orlando's civilian airport. The long runways are being used to land 747-loads of tourists from Brazil, Italy, Russia and Japan, so that they can come to Disney World and steep in our media for a while._

 _To traditional cultures, especially word-based ones such as Islam, this is infinitely more threatening than the B-52s ever were._

<comment><USER65> > Words are the only immutable medium we have, which is why they are the > vehicle of choice for extremely important concepts like the Ten > Commandments, the Koran, and the Bill of Rights.

Uh, certainly also maybe perhaps because written words were the only medium at the time? I imagine video and audio recordings will be just as important for future historians as writings have been to our time's historians

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> We have the same in Belgium in the Haller Bos (Bois de Halle). People walk on the flowers, pick them.

[https://www.halle.be/node/61837](https://www.halle.be/node/61837)

Each year there are more restrictions to enter the wood while the flowers are there.

</comment><comment><USER67> Not sure if it has English subtitles, but there is a documentary about a family who works in one of those famous rice terraces tourists fill up for taking photos: [https://youtube.com/watch?v=FyPIqCDocxY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=FyPIqCDocxY)

</comment><comment><USER68> As someone who grew up in an area where tourism was the only substantial industry I have zero sympathy (for the first world areas affected by this at least). When all the people complaining about idiots inconveniencing everyone taking pictures go on vacation they do the same damn thing.

</comment><comment><USER69> Contrarian opinion: this sounds like a business opportunity to me. I'm pretty sure an enterprising lavender farmer could make a lot more money in season by charging for access to their fields, taking a deposit to cover damage, and selling lavender bunches as props for $20 a pop.

<comment><USER70> Sounds good, but in the end the Instagrammers will instead charge the farmers for "exposure".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In Buenos Aires there's a beautiful old cemetery called La Recoleta.

One of my most jarring and bizarre memories from my time in Argentina was watching as hundreds of tourists took smiling/sultry pouting/peace sign selfies with the various graves and mausoleums.

</comment><comment> un-devmox I had a similar experience taking some relatives to Yellowstone last week. I was actually impressed that my 17 yo niece and 21 yo nephew absorbed the views primarily with their eyes and not there phones. As for the hoards of others...

</comment><comment><USER71> Grew up in one of those picturesque Maine villages you see, this is definitely getting worse as time goes on, but it is hard to put a stop to this because it also brings in lots of money to otherwise impoverished areas.

<comment><USER72> Which village, if you don't mind my asking (fellow Mainer here)? I grew up in a beautiful area that has never (and probably won't) seen the effects of tourism due to accessibility (read: The County), but have since moved to Southern Maine.

Maine has done a pretty good job of keeping tourism in check (I would say) despite being labeled the Vacationland, but I wonder if that has to do with our state having a more "plain" natural beauty? For example, Mount Katahdin is obviously impressive for the area, but it is nowhere near as dramatic as mountains out West. Then again, perhaps the strict enforcement of Baxter's vision for a forever "wild Maine" has served us well.

Or perhaps we are fortunate to have fairly brutal winters that give us a break from those who don't snowmobile!

<comment><USER71> Stonington!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Maybe this is an out of the box solution but ... start charging an entry fee for the Lavender fields and designated areas to pose in so the real fields don't get trampled?

</comment><comment><USER74> Remember this the next time a photographer cries about "theft" of their intellectual property on social media.

</comment><comment><USER75> instagram needs to be shut down tbh. it is damaging society in myriad ways

<comment><USER61> ....what

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Editorials like this make is sound like society has shared values.

</comment><comment><USER77> Same thing is happening in Monument Valley Utah/AZ... It's like an entire generation just discovered that the earth has some beautiful areas and they're coming to ruin it all.

<comment><USER37> Not to dismiss your point, but there was also a generation of people who wanted to mine the grand canyon. I think that as people we still have the same psychological trappings as we did before. But I do think we're becoming more conscious. Certainly, if you asked any of those lavender tramplers about setting of dynamite in that area to unearth copper or whatnot, they'd probably not support such an idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I wonder if a CO2 tax would fix that, too...

</comment><comment><USER79> This is a fixable problem. AR lenses so there is no longer a benefit to being somewhere just for the photo.

</comment><comment><USER80> No one was harmed by any of the things that the author is complaining about.</comment>


How to test whether your idea has a market - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codeable.io/2013/01/24/how-to-test-whether-your-idea-has-a-market.html

<comment><USER2> I see a lot of articles from you guys lately. It's cool, the articles are not bad and you are doing it the right way, you market your product by giving good articles. I think this is fine, just don't send out too much before you run out of content and become boring. Nobody would benefice from that. Once a week should be enough. Just my 2c.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, we've been talking about it actually, and decided to start out with a bit more frequently then ease out a bit. Being new on the market some awareness and traction can do us good :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a misconception that actually plays in your favor here: most people dramatically underestimate the execution risk of building a new product, particularly software.

If you can communicate very clearly what the product is going to look like and what it's going to do, selling a product that isn't done yet is not much harder than selling one that is. In some ways it's easier, because the customers can fill in the details themselves, and they don't appreciate how hard it is to get all those detail right.

</comment><comment><USER4> Would like to hear of an example where this worked. Even if I liked an idea someone pitched me on, I don't know if I'd give $10 to them to get early access to something they haven't started building yet.

Perhaps I'm jading at seeing too many bad Show HN posts where I think, who would want that?

<comment><USER3> It certainly works when you're selling to a business and you're showing how you can take away some real pain, or make them some real additional revenue.

I have gone in with a demo and come away with a deal for real money. Then we built the real product around that customer's actual needs, which made it dramatically better than we could have by just guessing in advance how they would use it.

Edit: Also see just about everything on Kickstarter, where people often pay real money for things that don't exist yet.

<comment><USER5> These things do exist - Kickstarter products are required to have prototypes and concrete deliverables.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ten dollars seems like a token amount that most clients would give you to just say, "Hey why not, maybe this will turn into something." I'd make it a higher amount or just, you know, genuinely ask them whether they would buy and use your product. Most people will give you their honest opinion either way.

</comment><comment><USER7> And to find potential customers other than your mom&friends, [0] HN post can certainly help!

[0]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4987836>

</comment><comment><USER8> "Building a product to fit an existing market, is better than finding a market to fit an existing product." - Unfortunately not my quote!

</comment><comment><USER9> If you can get someone to pay you $10 for an application you may or may not build in a year then you are either a hell of a salesman or you found someone truly gullible.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't this preciously what Kickstarter [<http://www.kickstarter.com/>] is for?

</comment><comment><USER5> Asking for money with no product? This is also called panhandling...</comment>


The IT Giant Mafia - github-cat http://www.pixelstek.com/article/1428161495-The-Giant-Mafia

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't realise the YouTube people were PayPal too. Also Kevin Rose worked there: the PayPal logo is his Photoshop work.

Not sure the 'Path' guy qualifies as much as the others on the list.

MessageBus has shut down.

<comment><USER2> > Didn't realise the YouTube people were PayPal too. Also Kevin Rose worked > there: the PayPal logo is his Photoshop work.

I don't think Kevin Rose worked at PayPal, nor created the PayPal logo. Thirdly, I don't think he's a designer.

Chad Hurley created the logo, as he was a designer at PayPal (wikipedia confirms). He told me he created the SpaceX logo, also. And I imagine the YouTube logo, too, as he was a founder.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, it was Chad Hurley. Reference: [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/09/mediatop1002007...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/09/mediatop1002007.mondaymediasection13) (obviously wikipedia doesn't count).</comment></comment></comment>


Building a startup from $0 to $1 – Day 3: IDEA - <AUTHOR> https://www.twitch.tv/branzzel <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, everyone, I'm building my new startup publicly from $0 to $1, if you could give me some advice It would be cool. Any suggestions are very welcome.</comment>


Haunted by a Gene - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/health/huntingtons-disease-wexler.html <comment><USER2> A really exiting small molecule drug has just been described, which, if this holds up in human trials, could treat the root cause of Huntington's disease. Rather unexpected how this works, even in postmitotic tissue, like the brain.

[https://www.sickkids.ca/aboutsickkids/newsroom/past- news/202...](https://www.sickkids.ca/aboutsickkids/newsroom/past- news/2020/huntingtons-dna-repeat-mutations.html)

[https://resou.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/research/2020/20200215_1](https://resou.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/research/2020/20200215_1)

Review: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-020-0577-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-020-0577-6)

Publication: [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0575-8](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0575-8)

(To read paywalled papers, sci-hub.tw is your friend, if substituted for doi.org)

</comment><comment><USER3> > "Enjoy life while you can," she advises. "Find what gives you some pleasure > and go for it."</comment>


How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West's Secrets - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html <comment><USER2> This is a duplicate but still it amazes me how a story with no actual facts substantiating the claims made can make it to NYTimes front page. This is at best a conspiracy theory and if anything these leaks strengthen our Democracy

<comment><USER3> Clinton money reaches far

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nothing against her personally but sadly with Mrs Clinton as president we are likely looking at more confrontation with Russia. Clearly the theme being promoted is that Russia needs to be confronted. A number of articles are promoting this agenda. Maybe our time could be spent more productively. Americans may think we have more serious problems domestically. I think some see in Putin, maybe not #1 good guy but someone who could be dealt with even tolerated, while we focus on more pressing issues facing the country.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that Putin is not just a nasty guy domestically, but also has made clear he wants to recover as much of the international power of the old Soviet Union, and the only way he can accomplish that is to take over or bring under his influence a lot of his neighbors.

Or are you one of those people who think that every time the US gets in a conflict with some other power, it always the US's fault?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder what Assange's economic philosophy is. Is he a socialist? That would explain why he is so convinced the capitalist US is the main danger in the world today. I have noticed that many socialists are friendly toward Putin's Russia, even though it is very far from being socialist, because it's the US's enemy.

On the other hand, he claims to be opposed to all big, oppressive governments. So is he a libertarian? But then he would be friendlier toward the US than Russia.

Maybe he doesn't have an economic philosophy. But that would be crazy, because econmics is so important for so many things involving human well-being.

Anybody know where Assange stands on this?

<comment><USER6> Why do people always look for a motive in his 'latest' leak.

Democrats turned on him when he leaks Clinton's emails so he must be pro trump (As stupidly demonstrated by Bill Maher in his interview)

The assumption seems to be that he has perfect information on everybody in the world and is cherry picking for some grand motive. I think he just publicizes what he can get his hands on, and there isn't much more to it than that.

<comment><USER5> I don't assume we should automatically trust or distrust him. The problem is I just don't understand enough about his motivations to decide whether or not to trust him.

The reason I am asking about his economic philosophy is it often influences people's decisions on matters of public importance, like releasing information to the public. If I understood his economic philosophy, it might help me understand his motives and so whether or not to trust him. On the other hand, it might not help.

And you have to admit, he's a unique individual. Aren't you at all curious to understand him?</comment></comment></comment>


Agile Development leads to Alzheimer's - <AUTHOR> http://swreflections.blogspot.ca/2013/07/agile-development-leads-to-alzheimers.html <comment><USER2> You have trouble with memory on any project that goes on more than 6 no.</comment>


Mark Zaleski on building & managing your board & investors - <AUTHOR> http://thebln.com/2011/05/mark-zaleski-on-building-managing-your-board-investors/

<comment><AUTHOR> Mark Zaleski turned round a dotcom disaster as CEO before selling the business for well over $1billion. He was also involved in one of the biggest disasters of the dotcom boom - WebVan. He learned a lot!

This short video shows him talking at the BLN Growth Forum in 2010 where he talked about why great investors are not always great board members, why your board and advisers are so critical and how to build and manage your board.

Make sure when you look for cash and invite board members in that you remember, a fish rots from the head. If you don't get it right, the rest of your business will go down the pan.</comment>


The Huge, Unseen Operation Behind the Accuracy of Google Maps - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/12/google-maps-ground-truth <comment><USER2> If you're fascinated by maps and digital cartography and haven't done so yet, do check out OpenStreetMap! It's competitive to Bing, HERE, etc. but everything is open, and the data is yours to play with.

There are projects based on OSM for routing, geo search, map editing, etc. that are also free. Definitely a lot of room for both programmers and non- programmers to contribute.

[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page)

<comment><USER3> I've had a great experience with Apple Maps, which are based in part on Open Street Map (giving data back too) and TomTom. I've found it's accurate enough to just trust it, and it's excellent at detecting and rerouting when I can't do what it wanted me to (eg: traffic in the way, or I just miss the turn.)

<comment><USER4> Outside the US, Apple Maps suck ass (I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it).

<comment><USER5> It depends on the city. In Melbourne, Australia for example I find Google Maps to be less accurate than Apple Maps. I also found the same in parts of Tokyo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a very detailed article. Most people do not appreciate how much work is put into building these digital maps, so it is great to see these kinds of articles.

While not as detailed, for contrast I want to post how Nokia's HERE maps builds their maps.

[http://360.here.com/2014/11/17/made-usa-people-fargo-make- ma...](http://360.here.com/2014/11/17/made-usa-people-fargo-make-maps/)

That is from the company blog. It shows a couple of our tools, but not nearly all. I work for HERE maps and my opinion is my own.

I just thought that people might be interested in how other companies like HERE build maps. Despite all the automation (at both google and HERE), it is still a human intensive process and there are people on the other end making it as correct as can be. Also, I can't go beyond what is written on the public blog as I am not a company spokesperson.

<comment><USER7> I can't imagine the amount of ambiguity that comes up in every day conversation when the name of your project/division is "here". Do you have internal language that's used to avoid such ambiguity?

<comment><USER8> I used to work for a company called "Going". We had no alternative internal code name. (I swear, if I heard one more pun about where I was "going"...)

That being said, you'd be surprised how little you need to refer to your own company by name internally, especially in an ambiguous manner. Usually its just "Hey, can you put this up on the site?" or "It would be cool if the product did X."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Google Map's data keeps getting better and better, they now have lane warnings (e.g. "right two lanes," etc) and traffic warnings with the offering to re- route (if they can find a quicker route). Although Google Map constantly offering to re-route me onto a slower route is a little odd (e.g. "want to re- route? It will be a 5 minute longer trip!").

That all being said, while Google Maps as a data source is amazing, Google Maps as an app and or web-site has a lot to be desired. Up until a few versions ago they had a way to add "My Places" but no way to actually access those places from the app (what?!). They have no search history (still, today), they do have suggestions but they are just somewhat useful, they have no compass (got removed), plus they went all "minimalist" and hide all the UI elements (and removed things like offline maps, for nearly a year).

I've actually been forced to stop using Google Maps as GPS as the app keeps closing during navigation and when re-opened it has "forgotten" what I was navigating to or previously searched for. So now I am forced, mid-journey to exit the freeway just to re-open Google Maps, re-search for my destination, and then re-start navigation just hoping it won't re-close-randomly before I get there...

It doesn't crash. It just closes. It is just gone. Like "poof." Then of course the phone goes into standby as nothing is keeping the screen on. At least if it had search history the situation MIGHT be recoverable, but nope...

<comment><USER10> I agree completely, there are so many great features I think they could have added instead of changing the interface.

1.) Send directions to a mobile device. There are many times where I search for directions or map out an alternate route on my desktop. The only way I can access those directions is to email it to myself then open the email on the mobile device. Why not just store the data and let the user retrieve it on their mobile device?

2.) Better accuracy of property in rural/suburban areas. It's odd to say this but Bing Maps is actually much more accurate in rural areas.

3.) More fine grained control over street view placement.

4.) Offline maps! Not everywhere has good cell coverage.

<comment><USER9> > Send directions to a mobile device.

Yeah. How is this not a thing?! I imagine a lot of people search for things on their desktop and then want to "push" it to their phone for navigation, but yet I have to re-enter the zip into the phone to do so.

<comment><USER11> I tend to get Google Now notifications for directions I've searched for on my desktop.

<comment><USER10> That is really intermittent for me. When I first started using Google now, I got them. These days, it only shows destinations I frequently travel to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I worked as a contractor in Kirkland on this project for about a year.

Just for context, the first image with the red and green dots--- each dot represents a 360-degree "street view" image. While consumers only get half-a- dozen a block, the operators got access to all of them. (Green are HD, red are normal def.) It was really useful for verifying that businesses had closed because the streetview dots also had the exact time that they were taken.

There was also deeplinking in Atlas to a specific dot and direction vector. So when I was submitting a change to a business, I could link to the exact sign that I saw to prove that "Mama's Teriyaki is on _that_ corner", which helped whoever QA'd my change.

It was a great first job out of college given that my degree wasn't very relevant to anything. (A lot of my coworkers in the same spot--- young, a degree that wasn't too useful, trying to find anything to do.) Out of the 400 contractors in that first Kirkland "class", I see tons of them around the Seattle tech industry now. It's been a surprisingly good network to have.

At the end of the day it was still data-entry / data-validation, and mind- numbingly boring.

<comment><USER13> This is actually very fascinating. About how many businesses a day would an average person versus a prolific or slow person manage to update? Did you mostly work off of business signs to determine information about businesses? What if no recent pictures had been taken?

<comment><USER12> We'd also use the internet and, reluctantly, call them. We would identify ourselves as google maps, calling for info about their business.

I don't quite remember the numbers, but it was something like 40 a day? The slower and new peeps would be around 25, and the fast people could do like 80 a day. But there weren't any productivity bonuses besides not being let go, so me and my buddies would do about 10% more than the average and then goof off on the internet or do homework for our python night class.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's wonderful what Google are doing with Google Maps, but I can't help but wish these maps were open to use by their competitors.

Imagine a world where all the effort Google, Apple, Microsoft and Nokia put into their maps all went into OpenStreetMap instead.

<comment><USER15> Can't understand the reasoning behind expecting a company to pour hundreds of millions of dollars and resources into something for free / no return at all.

<comment><USER16> Because once you get the incentives correctly aligned it's a massive boost in global wealth?

<comment><USER17> It's easy to talk about "boosting global wealth" when it's other peoples' money.

<comment><USER18> The parent and great-grandparent haven't proposed seizing private property, they're just noticing and drawing attention to waste. The observation is that if we could align incentives such that Bing, Google, OSM, Apple, etc were all investing aggressively into the same map data then everyone would be better off.

Maybe we can't! Capitalism is pretty damn good at some problems, optimal even. But it's not flawless, and it is worth noticing and thinking about places where gains appear to be possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Their screen capture of the Seattle Center area is particularly amusing given that their competitor Apple Maps still hasn't figured out:

1\. That Broad St no longer exists for a significant portion of its length.

2\. That Mercer St has been two-way for months now.

This is _the_ major east-west road in that area, and they can't even get that right.

Yes, I've reported it regularly for months now.

<comment><USER20> I think Apple gets the short end of the stick in these deals. The company that provides that mapping data usually has ridiculous restrictions on what you can/can't do to the data (even possibly disallowing your own patches), and Apple takes all the heat from users.

<comment><USER21> Apple has their name on the product, it's their responsibility to ensure it is up to par. It doesn't really matter who the fault lies with, if the data coming in isn't good enough then apple should be looking for different data sources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> They started Ground Truth when I was there and it really opened my eyes to just how "broken" a lot of map data sources were at the time. Something I considered to be a 'solved' problem (take aerial photograph, pull out streets, poof map!) was no where close to solved.

Some folks have said that Ingress, the Android and now iOS, real world geo game. Was in part an exercise in data collecting. Get people to photograph land marks in the real world to make "portals" while collecting GPS data associated with public landmarks for maps. And then use that data to localize things in satellite imagery, etc.

Makes for an interesting data set.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's little wonder that Google Maps is such an amazing application given all the time, intelligence, resources and just the sheer commitment Google's shown to it.

I know business considerations are what they are and often independent from others, but nothing shook my belief in Apple's commitment to quality as a defining principle more than the decision to replace Google Maps with Apple's own half-baked beta offering. Does anyone think they'll ever give maps & cartography the kind of attention to detail that Google's given it?

<comment><USER24> > Google Maps is such an amazing application

Not so amazing. Just the data is amazing. The app sucks.

<comment><USER25> The app may not be great, but it's pretty good, especially for the vast majority of users. From Google's perspective, I doubt it makes sense to add features that many of their users don't need and won't use.

<comment><USER24> I only need the "feature" that when it crashes, it should remember the route so as not to have to use (often missing) data connection in the middle of the trip. It's such a simple concept - save all routes for later recall, even if offline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Another similar article appeared two years ago:

How Google Builds Its Maps—and What It Means for the Future of Everything

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how- go...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google- builds-its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/)

I think most interesting point is not covered in either of them: How much of this effort devoted towards human curation? The numbers are believed to be ~1100 full time employees and 6000 contract workers[1]. These are huge numbers compared to most competitors in the market. Assuming each correction to a map can take 15 mins on average, you can easily make 100,000 corrections a day. Again, assuming there are top 2000 cities in the world where most of the queries originates, this is about 100 corrections per city per day. This would guarantee Google maps best of the best freshness, precision and recall on most metrics. With about 10X-20X larger curation force plus algo engineering, likes of Apple or HERE have no chance. In a way this also shows Google's leadership wisdom. Maps are _the_ most important thing on mobile and even on web. Most companies don't get this and provide minuscule budgets citing no potential revenues (for instance Ballmer cancelled Street View like effort at Microsoft). By the time they wake - if they wake up - it would be to only find that they have been outrun by such a huge gap that even a decade won't be enough to catch up.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/to-do-what-google-does-in- map...](http://www.businessinsider.com/to-do-what-google-does-in-maps-apple- would-have-to-hire-7000-people-2012-6)

</comment><comment><USER27> difficult to imagine why apple would have even attempted to get into this space ... they must realize they can only be a second rate player. maybe that's good enough for them? doesn't fit with their story/ethos though

<comment><USER28> Why do you assume an advertising company is better equipped/able than a technology company to run a maps/routing service?

<comment><USER23> Setting aside how one views/classifies the companies, you don't have to assume anything: Google's maps have qualitatively better data than Apple's because they've literally been driving & photographing much of the world's roadways. Apple shows no indication of having this kind of commitment and even if they did, Google has a significant, years-ahead lead.

<comment><USER28> So your theory is that Google must have better data about what is in a specific place, and how to get there from somewhere else, because they have a photo of that place, from the street?

<comment><USER23> Well, according the featured article we're commenting on, yes, that's about half of it in a nutshell. The other half is the algorithms they're running on all this street view data they're collecting.

Is it really that crazy a notion that actually driving the roads and collecting all kinds of data from it yields higher accuracy maps than just licensing less robust data sets from others?

<comment><USER28> trying to reverse engineer a photo of a property from the street into meaningful information, vs using data collected from businesses dedicated to providing mapping/location data, and information provided by people expressly interested in improving the available data?

Sure, keep analysing that shop front.

<comment><USER23> Look, obviously there's more to it than _just_ street view and algorithms. The article also talks about manual reviews, corrections, and verifications by lots of human staff. Google also allows businesses to add/update their listings. I've done it for ours. I've then had someone from Google call me to confirm it too. They also have Skybox imaging now as well as Waze.

I focus on street view because it is a big source of data (per the FA) and a testament to the comitmment and effort that's gone into it. In the U.S., how many other map makers actually drove 99% of the roads on thier map? Maybe that doesn't make a difference to you, but I think the central premise of this article and the general consensus of most users is that it does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> St. Louis streetwalker serial killer, Maury Travis, sent the local newspaper a computer generated map giving the intersection where he left a body.

Investigators determined that web-based mapping software Expedia was used-- based on symbols used to mark highways and such--ruling out Mapquest, Yahoo, and others.

A single person had clicked on that intersection in Expedia in the 5 days before the map was received by the newspaper. They traced the person presumably using the IP address.

This was back in 2001.

It's odd that we still have unsolved street crime given that everyone today carries a tracking device sending back real-time geolocation data.

</comment><comment><USER30> There was a great talk on this at Google I/O 2013. Recording here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsbLEtS0uls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsbLEtS0uls)

</comment><comment><USER31> I dunno, there's been a Starbucks open a couple blocks from me for six months now. Wasn't on Google Maps until I went and added it myself!

<comment><USER20> It's incredible how Google can get so many people to work for them for no pay. Would you similarly contribute to closed-source proprietary software if given the opportunity?

<comment><USER32> I'd put that sort of contribution in the detailed bug report category, something I'd absolutely contribute to closed source proprietary software if I thought there was a good chance it would get fixed and that I wouldn't have to deal with it being broken anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Google maps is amazing. I was on my way to Detroit Airport, I live about 1.5hours away. Anyways, I wanted to double check directions so I used google maps, and it came up with directions that were going to take me 2 hours. I laughed thinking, 'oh technology, 2 steps forward, 1 step back'. So I drove down the way I already knew and was just double checking. With twenty minutes left in the drive, theres a deadstop traffic jam. Highway is closed. Turns out entire highways flooded in Detroit around 6-7am, and when I googled directions around 830am, google knew not to go that way, but I didn't. Made it to the airport 3 hours later, with a flight 6 hours after that. I had never been so impressed with google maps before this though. How did it know not to go that way so fast? I literally just drove right into it no warning or detour signs.

<comment><USER34> They have gotten really good at this since acquiring Waze, which crowdsources traffic data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> And yet, when I want to go from SFO to Cupertino, it absolutely refuses to offer taking 380 to 280, even when it is 10 to 15 minutes faster according to Google itself.

Apparently they still haven't fixed the whole "we have to go directly away from the destination for a little while" problem.

</comment><comment><USER36> > The majority of buildings in the U.S. are now on Google Maps.

I doubt this. Out of curiosity I looked at my family's farm and Google Maps is missing most of our outbuildings. More generally I'm sure that they come up short on backyard sheds, pool buildings, structures in dense forests, etc.

<comment><USER37> Where do you think _the majority_ of buildings are? I mean, there's a long tail, but more than 80% of the US population lives in urban environments; the head of that density graph is _massive_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> An interesting anecdote: the "promenade claude lévi-strauss" is a new street in Paris (around 1 year old, pedestrian only). It doesn't exist in Google Maps yet, which make Uber fail when you try to go there as Uber rely on google maps. (many people might want to go there, as it is now where all the paris urban planning administration is. I had to for a permit.)

Actually last I tried Uber/Google Maps sent you at the directly opposite corner of Paris, to the Quai Branly Museum, probably because there is something related to the anthropologist there (?).

Both Apple Maps and more interestingly the crowd sourced OpenStreetMap know about the "promenade". I'm curious to see how long it will take Google to discover this new street.

<comment><USER39> > _more interestingly the crowd sourced OpenStreetMap know about the > "promenade"._

Not too suprising really. OSM can be updated in a minute to add new features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> After relying on Google Maps a lot for many years living in the US, I have (maybe unsurprisingly) noticed that it doesn't work nearly as well in Europe. As in, I'd zoom in on central Stockholm and search for something common, like the name of a restaurant, and Maps would promptly swoosh me to Nicaragua where it found a place with that name. It's doing stuff like this so often that I rarely use it anymore.

</comment><comment><USER41> This article shows that Waze's method of crowd sourcing maps is the right way to go. Waze is able to have realtime detailed information about every street, building, directions, etc. including all the details that were discussed in the article + much more (e.g. future road changes), and most importantly it does that in a fraction of the cost. Now it seems that the 1.3B that Google paid for it is probably a bargain

</comment><comment><USER42> Despite all of Google' effort, they still rely too much on USGS published maps. For example, just 6 miles from the GooglePlex is a road in Newark with a gate [1], but Google doesn't know you can't drive on it.

They're doing a good thing, but unless you can see that Google has driven the route and has published street view, you can't entirely trust them.

[1] 37.515696 -122.050873

</comment><comment><USER43> So they have speed limit information? It would be handy if you could have that information on the navigation screen, maybe even with a warning when you exceed it.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm still waiting for smartphones to be more fully crowd sourced into maps. I badly want real-time traffic data to come from smartphones.

<comment><USER20> This already happens on Google Maps. Or do you mean in an open-data way?

<comment><USER44> Is the data gathered from crowdsourced smartphones? If it is then the precision is shit. Waze has been continuously unimpressive in dense urban environments. It can sometimes take 15 minutes to go two blocks through two lights. And neither Waze nor Google Maps correctly show that.

Using the GPS drains battery and there are huge privacy concerns. It's not an easy thing to do right. But I think it can be done.

<comment><USER45> >>Is the data gathered from crowdsourced smartphones?

Yes. Google deduces traffic congestion by the speed of Android devices in cars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Anyone have resources for mitigating the web map zoom level inaccuracy bug? I guess I know this only as the OSM bug, but it is the reason web mapping like OSM and Google Maps isn't used much by true GIS analysis. You can see this most easily by having your GPS on with your phone and using Google Maps on the web. When you zoom out your location accuracy decreases the more zoomed out you are. This doesn't seem to happen on the Maps app on my phone.

<comment><USER47> What are you talking about?

<comment><USER46> [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender_bug](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender_bug)

<comment><USER39> Osmarender hasn't been used in years. A new and faster tile service on the main openstreetmap.org website was deployed and that makes osmarender unneeded. Try OSM now, it might be good for you.

<comment><USER46> So the problems this article brings up about the Google Mercator projection have been solved? Do you have any links to more readings about the issues?

>"We have reviewed the coordinate reference system used by Microsoft, Google, etc. and believe that it is technically flawed. We will not devalue the EPSG dataset by including such inappropriate geodesy and cartography."

<comment><USER39> You can render OSM data with any projection you want. Internally OSM stores lat/longs.

<comment><USER46> Well if I still use the Web Mercator I'm still going to have widely inaccurate feature rendering between zoom levels. Thank you for trying, I guess I should be asking these questions in GIS forums instead.

<comment><USER48> The problems with Web Mercator and spatial analysis are due to the way the projected data is distorted:

[http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2010/03/05/measuring- dista...](http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2010/03/05/measuring-distances- and-areas-when-your-map-uses-the-mercator-projection/)

The zoom level bug you are hung up on was due to the way web mercator was implemented in _Osmarender_. This is why people are answering your concerns about teh zooming by pointing out osmarender is no longer used.

So no, don't use web mercator for analysis. But only worry about inconsistent rendering across zoom levels if you are using Osmarender.

<comment><USER46> Thank you!! Yeah I've never used OSM render, it is just the only place I had been able to find discussion about the inaccuracies of the projection. It also exists in all online slippy maps I've used from the latest OpenLayers to the latest Google Maps. Thanks again!

<comment><USER39> There is lots of discussion about various map projections. There's even a XKCD strip about it. [http://xkcd.com/977/](http://xkcd.com/977/)

<comment><USER46> Thank you, however that is not related to the issues I'm discussing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>