this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
253 points (90.4% liked)

World News

32363 readers
585 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 105 points 1 year ago (7 children)

That's ridiculous, but I think the title makes it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually is.

[the lawsuit] also named several private property management companies allegedly responsible for the bridge and adjoining land.

If he could just drive off a collapsed bridge without any warnings someone has clearly not taken their responsibility.

If there's a lack of signage and road blocks, and the map says the road is fine, I can see how one would make such an error.

I don't agree google maps should be held accountable here, but if this bridge has been collapsed for a decade, I can see why someone would want to at least pose the question.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would agree, however if this statement from the article can be proven:

The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.

Then there might be an argument that Google was negligent in not updating it's maps. I'd agree that it's a weak argument and that the Terms of Service likely contains a clause like "you are responsible to watch out for road conditions". But, if the bridge has been out for a decade and multiple attempts to update Google about the collapsed bridge had been made, that may rise to the level of negligence.

[–] silvershrimp0@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I encountered this issue too. An overpass near me was demolished but Google Maps was still showing it there. I submitted an edit and included a link to the state DOT's website about the project that clearly stated the overpass would be permanently demolished and not replaced. My edit was rejected.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google’s editing algorithm is atrocious.

I’m a local guide, although I haven’t really done much in ages. Still, one day not too long ago I was standing in a new business that wasn’t on maps yet. I added the business, photos, hours, even their phone number and it was immediately rejected.

Sometimes you can get small changes approved but change more than one or two things and it’s immediately rejected too. Doesn’t help much with saying “road isn’t here” though.

[–] digitalgadget@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I tried to report a restaurant as closed. I was looking forward to eating there while out of town. It was empty, had a big CLOSED sign in the window, and was surrounded by construction equipment and road barriers. I took pictures of all of this and they still rejected my edit.

They did approve my addition of a river access in the middle of nowhere, though.

[–] offbyone@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago

Keep in mind it's not an all or nothing thing, they'll assign percentages of fault. It's also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.

Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I imagine Google maps gets it's data mostly from municipal and regional open data sources which often have downloadable road information.

If that's the case no one in the city's GIS department ever disconnected the road to show it was no longer connected, as they may never have been notified since people likely don't ever think to notify the GIS guys of unplanned changes to road systems.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If the bridge was no longer there why wasn't there massive unmovable concrete barriers in the road?

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was as baffled as you are, until I law the location it happened.

[–] PureTryOut@lemmy.kde.social 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, could you link it? What about the location makes it obvious that they didn't plate unmovable concrete barriers?

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article just says there were no barriers placed. There were no pictures but it mentions Snow Creek Lake in North carolina as the location if you want to map it on google.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't get any results for Snow Creek Lake NC. There's a Snow Creek township but it doesn't have any lakes I can see

Ok the first paragraph says

Snow Creek in Hickory, North Carolina

other sources lead me to it https://maps.app.goo.gl/zJNzNtordE6YrbJn8

Unless they fixed the bridge since this incident it still says you can use this road....

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It says the road is closed now.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

Wow, looking through the 10 year old street view images I couldn’t even see the bridge at first, it’s not very large, the type you likely drive over every day without even thinking of it as a bridge. That’s a disaster waiting to happen, looks like any street. At speed it could be bad during the day, nobody expects to be driving along and suddenly the road is gone. At night impossible. I’m surprised this is the first time it’s happened, if it hasn’t happened before.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The OP already linked an article which tells you

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The article doesn’t have pictures or mention why there were no barriers, which I think this person is asking.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ohhhhhhhhhh, my bad. Think I need another coffee!

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have read because it was a private road, they are legally not allowed to place an unmovable object

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That doesn't make sense. If it's a private road, wouldn't that mean you can place whatever you want on it? It's your road.

[–] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The developer never turned over the road to the North Carolina DOT after completion of the subdivision.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Just depends on the “they”. Local government wouldn’t touch it, the owners could have. I’d say it’s a slam dunk case against the owners for exactly that reason. Google ignored numerous reports so they may get some blame too.

[–] MrPhibb@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is what I was thinking, suing Google sounds like a cash grab as there's government agencies and possibly private land owners responsible for putting up barriers and signs warning the bridge is out. Google maps is useful, but you still have to use some sense rather than blindly following it, heck, I've run into cases where it can't figure out how to get to a street (that actually happened yesterday).

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Directing people onto a road that has had a collapsed bridge for a decade, despite numerous reports that the bridge is collapsed, does not leave them blameless.

[–] MrPhibb@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Why, why are they under any obligation to be accurate? I"ve used them since you had to print out the directions, they've told me to make illegal turns, go the wrong way down one way streets, use a road with a bridge out, use roads that don't exist and more, and while annoying, I just rolled with it, because they never promised me anything more than that the directions were prolly accurate.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz -1 points 1 year ago

I wonder if a HOA owns the land

[–] Syldon@feddit.uk -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am with you 100%. Expecting Google to be responsible for road maintenance is a frivolous. Google will sue them for legal costs.

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 7 points 1 year ago

Absolutely not. Google played a part in causing this death, it might have been a minor part, but it was a party in the death. The court will decide how much.

This isn't a frivolous claim, this is Google not being able to maintain their maps safely. Google needs to put more resources into map maintenance, and respond when people submit safety issues with their mapping data.