If you combine this with the fuzzy gps from xkcd then you could create a Driving With Your Mom simulator. "Okay wait, I think we're supposed to take one of these exits so we go by that house I wanted to show you WAIT IT'S THAT ONE DON'T DRIVE PAST IT UGH WHY IS MY SON SO STUPID."
Actually you might not even need that. Maybe you just need a tape which plays "you're driving too fast" and "watch out for the bread truck" over and over.
A better metric, I suspect, is to use the ratio of the number of photos taken to the amount of traffic on the road. A higher pictures-per-car ratio would, presumably, correlate well with the quality of the scenery. A scenic, but low-traffic road, may not have many pictures overall, but it probably will have lots of pictures compared to the number of cars which use it. Even touristy areas are liable to have lots of pictures per vehicle: what tourist doesn't take lots of pictures? The local accounting office, on the other hand, I'd expect to be photographically boring by comparison.
For even more accuracy, also take the population density (or perhaps building density) into account. A residential street, for instance, is liable to have both lots of pictures and low traffic--but you can give such areas a penalty, requiring a larger pictures-per-car ratio (pictures-per-car-per-capita!).
You're quite right, it will happen. But I don't think it's a good thing.
At the moment, if you want a scenic route you have to take five or ten minutes to do a little thinking about it. This means most people don't.
That's good, because LOTS OF PEOPLE = NOT FUN OR SCENIC as far as roads go. You can easily get the scenic, but it's more than two button clicks away.
In five years time all the lovely little roads that you need to go out and find will be clogged with people in ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE motorhomes and be LESS PRETTY and NO FUN and SMELL BAD and I will USE ALL CAPS MORE because it will make me SAD.
Comments 44
http://scenic.mysociety.org/
Their data is available for use under a Creative Commons license, and is already being used for a project tangentally related to your idea:
http://mapumental.channel4.com/
Reply
Actually you might not even need that. Maybe you just need a tape which plays "you're driving too fast" and "watch out for the bread truck" over and over.
Reply
A better metric, I suspect, is to use the ratio of the number of photos taken to the amount of traffic on the road. A higher pictures-per-car ratio would, presumably, correlate well with the quality of the scenery. A scenic, but low-traffic road, may not have many pictures overall, but it probably will have lots of pictures compared to the number of cars which use it. Even touristy areas are liable to have lots of pictures per vehicle: what tourist doesn't take lots of pictures? The local accounting office, on the other hand, I'd expect to be photographically boring by comparison.
For even more accuracy, also take the population density (or perhaps building density) into account. A residential street, for instance, is liable to have both lots of pictures and low traffic--but you can give such areas a penalty, requiring a larger pictures-per-car ratio (pictures-per-car-per-capita!).
Reply
At the moment, if you want a scenic route you have to take five or ten minutes to do a little thinking about it. This means most people don't.
That's good, because LOTS OF PEOPLE = NOT FUN OR SCENIC as far as roads go. You can easily get the scenic, but it's more than two button clicks away.
In five years time all the lovely little roads that you need to go out and find will be clogged with people in ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE motorhomes and be LESS PRETTY and NO FUN and SMELL BAD and I will USE ALL CAPS MORE because it will make me SAD.
Reply
T-Rex! Stomping! It is crazy-go-nuts.
Reply
Leave a comment