Yeah, but if you start labeling neighborhoods as “bad” on a mapping program you have a different set of problems.
People need to be aware of their surroundings and not cluelessly follow programs like this.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
238 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59701 readers
5170 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think it is simply "huh this place looks sketch". Not sure if you read the article.
The thing is, the criminals knew that Google routes rental cars along a typical route and so they ambush tourists violently along that route. For all I know the route may look fine.
Anyway, you don't have to label neighborhoods. Just have the app route them differently.......
....But wouldn't the criminals catch onto that before long so that the new route becomes the ambush zone?
Maybe there is a solution like randomly choosing a particular path at different hours but the fewer alternate routes the less effective that will be. Criminals could simply stake out one route and wait a little longer before a victim passes by.
But is this really a mapping company's problem to solve? Is the map app responsible for traveler security? What if you ask to be routed into or through a war zone (e.g. somewhere in Ukraine). Does the map app refuse? Warn you? Or what?
What if someone gets a paper map? Is the map maker responsible? How about the rental car employees?
Where does the responsibility of the tourist begin and end here?
My point was the that labeling certain areas as “bad” can create problems, even if it’s an area known for carjacking tourists. What defines a “bad” area? Petty theft? Drug arrests? Violent crime? Homelessness? How much crime does it take to be labeled “bad”? Unfortunately a lot of those areas are tied to poverty, and all too often poverty is tied to minorities. So say we start labeling areas, now traffic is reduced and maybe it even starts impacting local businesses because people are now checking the box that says “avoid bad areas” and routes people around a place that maybe got drive thru traffic at the coffee shops or gas stations.
You can easily see how difficult this is a policy to make. I’m not dismissing the problems these people encountered, but implementing this in popular guidance apps isn’t going to be easy.
Maybe instead of "I got a burger that tasted like any other McDonald's burger" it could say "the carjackers were scarier than I could ever have imagined"? Seriously, it doesn't have to label it as bad, it just has to have a warning sign, list risky activity in the area, and have alternate routes. Sucks if you're the marijuana guy and your corner gets outed, but not so bad if the carjacker ambush zone gets highlighted.
We need the cops to arrest the bastards that are committing these crimes.
I mean, if they were targeting routes that Google maps used how is it googles fault?
They will simply target the next route Google changes it to.
And what exactly would you have done differently? At what point would you have started to ignore the GPS directions and randomly drive around in an area you know nothing about?
This isn't the same as driving off a cliff or the wrong direction on a one-way road, these people were targeted by experienced criminals. I'm not saying it's Google's fault, but maybe let's try to avoid blaming the victims of a vicious attack.
Maybe don't try to blame a map for giving you directions to a place you asked to go to.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, since I very clearly wrote I also don't think this was Google's fault (even if they did stop sending people through that area a mere couple of weeks after this incident).
I also don't think it's fair to blame these people for this, and so I'm trying to understand what you would've done differently in the same situation.
I don't think anyone is unaware that South Africa is dangerous. Research on where to go and how is something everyone should do a lot of before going.
They didn't ask to go to the dangerous place, they asked for the airport and Maps took them through the dangerous place.
Assuming they're tourists, probably ask the rental car agent and hotel clerks what the best routes to are. Most locals in hospitality in my experience are happy to share their insight with you.
The problem is like the other said, people need to be on their toes in a foreign environment. It's the same with foreign nationals visiting the US, like people visiting SF accidentally ending up in the rough areas of Oakland, or visiting tourist destinations in Mexico. At some point, personal responsibility needs to come into play, and that includes doing your homework about sketchy areas to avoid. It isn't victim blaming to ask people to think and prepare, and not go blindly wandering about.
If it’s your town and you realize your GpS is taking you a ghetto place you can always turn around and drive in another direction. I’d on vacation, turns out travel guide still exist. Google maps and GPs is only doing exactly what you asked it; go from A to B with the hottest time between the two points. That’s why it sometimes takes you through residential area for no apparent reason just because the algorithm calculated a 0.3min time savings.
Now the real question is: if a self driving car takes you through a bad area and you get mugged…
Ask locals before going somewhere you haven't before? They'll tell you if there are spots that are no-go zones for tourists and what to look out for.
Ask the people at the counter if there’s any place you should avoid. You’re a foreigner in an unfamiliar place in the case of this article.
Apparently Google stopped routing people through Nyanga a few months ago https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2023-11-13-google-maps-will-no-longer-direct-visitors-through-cape-town-township-after-attacks-on-motorists/
I don't see how it is a map's duty to rank areas like this.
Can you imagine the knock-on effects of some places being decided as being "bad" by Google?
Businesses would collapse, the area worsen, crime and poverty increase, the people who live there would have a collapse in house prices, so they'd be trapped there.
Meanwhile, in the "good" areas, businesses would do better, property prices would be driven up more than they are already, and long term only the wealthy would be able to live there.
Not to mention the whole issue of "X place has been ranked as bad and it has predominantly Y ethnicity or Z religion living there! This is a hate crime by Google!"
People should be aware that South Africa in general is a dangerous place with a high crime rate, particularly violent crime.
17 people per 100k get stabbed to death, compared to 0.6 for the US, 0.2 for France, and 0.08 for the UK. That's insane.
Homicide in general is 41.9 people per 100k (3rd highest worldwide). Compared to 6.4 in the US, 1.1 in France, 1.0 in the UK.
Personally, South Africa is a place to avoid. Particularly because tourists especially are targeted by criminals.
It's amazing how systemic racism can destroy a country. Speaking as someone from the US.
Apparently Google stopped routing people through Nyanga a few months ago https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2023-11-13-google-maps-will-no-longer-direct-visitors-through-cape-town-township-after-attacks-on-motorists/
They wouldn't need to label them as bad to inform users. It's possible to display crime statistics without bias.
Except that still has the same effect and simply amplifies the result of shitty policies.
That would still entrench the area - How would a change of bad to good reflect on google maps? How quickly would that change show up?
Crime statistics come preloaded with systemic bias for your convenience.
Nyanga is basically right next to the airport.
It's the same place where that British man was killed last year.
When you leave the airport, you have three choices.
-
Turn left on the N2, which takes you to the winelands/strand/Somerset west.
-
Turn Right on the N2 to get to Cape Town CBD.
-
Go straight, which puts you directly in Nyanga.
If you're visiting, never pick option 3. If you miss both onramps to the N2, immediately just turn around.
It's really unfortunate that one of the most dangerous areas in the province is in such close proximity to the airport.
Almost everywhere else is much safer in comparison. I really hope this doesn't dissuade any potential visitors. It's a really nice country, in spite of its flaws.
Holy crap, the second you cross under the N2, immediate super high density shanty town.
Anyone who doesn't nope out of there shouldn't be traveling
Bummed out seeing Mathuba's Place temporarily closed
It's really unfortunate that one of the most dangerous areas in the province is in such close proximity to the airport.
It's pretty common from what I've seen, especially large international airports. Like that In N Out that's shuttering an Oakland store for the first time in their history. The area around LAX is pretty bad as well.
It's not a coincidence, nobody wants to live near an airport let alone an international one, the noise level is insane. My grandparent's house is less than a half mile from the edge of one, and even with soundproofing, the dishes still set to rattling far too often. The airport was basically forced to buy out like half the neighborhood because it was so bad.
I frequented Cape Town and Johannesburg doing research, that also included going into black townships to chat with people. I myself had an escort of 15 huge guys with guns and still had all sorts of problems around Nyanga including a shoot out over me recording video. Would never walk or drive around there on my own, I saw so many tourists and (white) locals being targeted, attacked and beaten on the street. There's a reason everyone lives in highly secure compounds. You should know this before going to SA. The most beautiful place, best food on the planet, but you may die for it.
It's fine if you stick to the good areas and always be aware of your surroundings.
For people worried about finding the "good areas", it's not that tough. We stayed at a Hilton and it was super affordable to use their concierge service to get us a safe driver. He was personable and took us where we needed to go, and explained the safe and unsafe neighborhoods... Though we weren't planning on doing any walking around randomly or anything. By affordable I mean they only charged like $50 for this guy to drive us for a few hours and wait in the car while we did our sightseeing. We gave a good tip at the end and he was very happy.
South Africa is beautiful and if you can afford to get there, you can probably afford to use this kind of service to be there safely.
50 sounds like a steal for a handful of hours and a local that knows what's up.
Should be the road authority's responsibility to put a "gangs ahead next 5 km" sign, lol.
They have something like that
https://www.i-traffic.co.za/region/Western%20Cape#:Alerts
Enable the message sign filter. Some of them are like "MAKE PEACE WITH YOUR GOD NOW" and others are like "Remember to wash your ass, you filthy mf"
They chose to vacation in a country that has ~50000 murders each year and drove around without doing research on different areas. Did they think that the entire country was safe to travel through?
When people say, "it's safe as long as you do x, y, z, and don't do a, b, c," some people just hear, "don't worry, it's safe".
I'd never go to a place that is less safe than my hometown
Depending on your hometown, that's a terrible philosophy.
That's the philosophy that doesn't get you killed by a street gang. 10/10
The New Eisleben Road was known as a “prime site” for the assaults because its highly congested roads would make it difficult for victims to escape, and “the gangs knew that Google Maps sent unsuspecting tourists driving rental cars” along it, the lawsuit alleged, according to Mercury News.
It's high crime because google sends tourists there...
If it sent them somewhere else, that would be the high crime area.
It's a high crime neighborhood because criminals live there. Or more precisely, because it's a poor, gang infested neighborhood.
What you've said makes no sense. There are high crime neighborhoods like this all over the country independently of what Google maps does. There are also neighborhoods full of tourists that aren't high crime areas.
Particular conditions, in this particular neighborhood, lead to these particular crimes occurring.
I wonder if we will hear the outcome of the lawsuit or if it will just get settled out of court.
“the gangs knew that Google Maps sent unsuspecting tourists driving rental cars” along it, the lawsuit alleged, according to Mercury News.
...
The company finally agreed to stop Google Maps from directing people through the area albeit three weeks after the attack, which prompted the couple to seek unspecificed damages.
On the one hand yes there are high crime areas and this is one.
On the other hand, it is possible that Google routed them stupidly.
On the other hand people shouldn't be traveling without learning a bit about the local threats and how to stay safe.
But crime is ultimately the responsibility of governments and they also have some responsibility to tourists.
So, there were no crimes there before Google existed?
I hope they get a good payout. Google's software gave them dangerous directions even though authorities had warned Google about what was repeatedly happening. Waze warns drivers about dangerous conditions including road sections where accidents are statically more likely. Google has the capability and obligation to advise motorists on the objective, relative crime risk of every route suggestion.