Why Google Maps Doesn't Show You Unsafe Areas 

Agree

No there isnt. people dont know. If you tell someone an area is dangerous sometimes people will avoid it. Thats a basic survival mechanism

Have the map show areas of danger based on time of day. The data from public record almost all includes time of day that crimes occurred. So, if it's an area where at night it's dangerous, but during the day it's more mild, reflect that information in the application. Business would be much less affected in that case, since most of their primary traffic is during the day.

@@ForTheOmnissiah but people might look at Google maps the night before and see that it's an "unsafe" area, while it actually isn't during the day

Time of day is definately an interesting aspect. However, if say you moved to a new city and find out your street is market as dangerous at night and you invite some people over, how would that change their wililngness to come back (or your perception of the place, even if nothing happened)? Not to say I have a solution, otherwise I'd be working on my app 😁

maps and navigation are really different things. if you're just uncomfortable on a route, its not like big G is forcing you to continue staying on that dangerous route. adding a minimarket that's open 24/7 as a middle stop is a plausible solution. those people that walk past your window are probably already commited to the act. if you're the one uncomfortable in the situation, you can just put a sign that says the road isn't really meant for public use

In before someone gets triggered about you only mentioning it being unsafe for women.

@@user-vi4xy1jw7e 😂

@@helper_bot still, how many people are still liable to do the "take a Right into the tree" thing, expecting users to use common sense and their Own awareness whilst navigating whilst it's Supposed to be how it should be sadly leads to incidents like the Lost Italians,

It also incenvises people to light areas appropriately, so this would actually be a positive.

Google maps already does that

Is this why google takes me in 20 roads when I could literally just go in a striaght line?

Yeah it already does that. The main roads almost always being the fastest route by design.

Use Waze if u wanna go through the back blocks

@@dazzlingdexter5060 When it takes you through 20 roads, most likely there's high traffic on the main. It happened to me once. Decided I wouldn't follow Google's route and went another shorter route that I know. Welp, big mistake cuz that road was throttled. Took me a long ass time to get out of there and follow the route again. Google Maps will almost always look for time efficient routes.

All you've done is slowed down the gaming of the system. Remember, user location data is available to many apps and in turn, scraping for routes by other services (say yelp or something like that) is also very possible. You might be obfuscating the presentation of data through presenting only positives and culling negatives, but you can still use a positive to infer a negative over time with enough collected metrics (that's how science works) and there's also a very big incentive to do so.

I have an idea, how about we fix the crimes themselves

@@akkoismydaughter3573 Or better yet, the causes of crime socioeconomically so less or even no people have to turn to crime.

Me: chooses safest route to X Google: finding direction to location X. You have arrived at your destination. Your destination is where you're at *ends navigation*

@@osakanone if there is a system at all, it can be gamed.

the way you wrote this sounds similar to "Taking a Long walk from a short pier"

You gotta risk it for the biscuit man. Exercise and stay in shape at all costs. Apple is an adrenaline junky, imagine how fun it would've been from a horror point of view.

For real. Apple was like “hmmm this dude has an Apple Watch and an iPhone. If he gets robbed he’ll buy our shit again… yeah let’s tell him to go out hehe”

​@@Voron_Aggrav "taking a short walk into a long standoff."

Parks at night? Fuck that, where the FUCK

​@@davemccombs there is quite a few parks google maps sent me trough by night here in London.🥶 The way along regent's canal which has almost no light at all is also very often presented as the best itinerary 😅

Ok thx i guess i always felt that it was kinda sketchy for me as a teen to go in parks late at night just to work out so i dont get judged by people at daylight.

@@anne4922 google maps secretly wants us dead

government parks are okay as long as they're actually maintained.... i think crime rates are just subjective things, you can't count on real life data to associate connections. it'd be totally better for locals to put up signs saying beware of high crime rates and provide some kind of quick how-to guide if you're ever in danger.

You keep using that word: "Objective". I don't think it means what you think it means.

@@frien_d Well, I do love to be corrected, but for that smugness isn't really gonna cut it

@@georgecozma8376 Seeing smugness where none is shown huh? offended?

@@frien_d Yes, the points stated are exactly what the term 'objective facts' means

@@DrAjASK thank you Would have made the exact same Statement

If you're not in a safe area, it's only less safe to stop there

@@insanitycubed8832 I agree, but why would you stop in this scenario?

@@T0phT0ph To "hit a button". Technically illegal to do that driving

@@insanitycubed8832 That is true although it depends on the country you live in and if you are using maps on your cars infotainment system or on your phone. It might be necessary to implement this feature via voice command when driving. Also you might be on foot or there is a passenger in the car who is allowed to use the phone.

@@T0phT0ph Car screen and phone screen are legally distinct some places? interesting. Well I can't see any issues with this anymore except if google bites back and says it's safe lol

This Problem accured to my multiple times It would be awsome to be able to report this or at least tell google there is a blocked road and force it to find an alternative Route

@@97oweb I'm actually baffled this isn't a feature. Just outright telling the system the route is completely blocked and what road in particular has the blockage so it can calculate a new route. It often calculates multiple routes, but often all the routes share many roads, and if those roads contain a blockage, you're kind of on your own.

Yall wanna use waze. You can report clousures, incorrect speed limits, traffic, and police positions and all users can see it

Omg yes, being able to change the routes to alternatives on your own would be a game changer. It's strange enough to me that even in my home country germany, which is pretty interconnected with the world crucial bridges can be blocked for months already which everyone knows about but Google Maps still somehow thinks I can just magically pass it anyway

You have the power of invisibility? 🤨

Well isn't Mexico basically one huge lawless zone, were people are loped off for bus fare

I probably wouldn’t travel through Mexico outside of tourist spots. I just wouldn’t know enough about where to avoid

​@@FreelancerFreak You are so far from the truth on so many levels. Its honestly even hard to blame people for their ignorance when American and western media more broadly only talks about Mexico when they can run a story on border security and cartels. Mexico is a HUGE country, I believe it's somewhere around tenth in both population and size, the level of danger is greatly dependent on who you interact with and what part of the country you're from. Yes, it is true that practically all of Mexico has a cartel presence, but most places, especially where people live, only have the presence of one cartel. Most of the violence is either with people who either unfortunately get involved in the cartels and either them or their family get into trouble, or in contested areas. With some exceptions, the majority of the territorial disputes are in the north near the border, where controlling entrances into the US is highly lucrative. Most of Mexico's population is in the south, very far from the violence near the border. This is not to say that their aren't serious issues of violence in that region of the country or to minimize those people's plight, but in no way is that the only reality of living in Mexico. In addition, the cartels definitely do influence the government and contribute to corruption, but most places are not "lawless". Just like most places, theirs issues with bribery, and with entities with large amounts of money affecting politics to benefit their interests. Theirs definitely real problems in Mexico, but people also live normal and fulfilling lives. Mexico is very much safe for westerners, as long they don't enter through dangerous parts of the American border, or put themselves in taxi situations where they could get mugged. Mexico is so incredibly miss understood in the west and it's pretty upsetting.

@@FreelancerFreak Mexico is a Nation in active Civil War just not for the Gov't but really it varies State by State within Mexico. They each have their own Travel Risk Ratings unlike most countries

@@oaxtec765 2 Americans dead & 4 Kidnapped in a border state that was high risk you were on point

your first sentence is a strong argument, they wouldn't be able to label areas as good or bad, or even low risk/high risk with such things without risking being on the hook for it, even if its TOSsed out and its just the court of public opinion. But your other sentence, no most people are utterly risk adverse. Unless like you they were living there and didn't have an immediate alternative, people wont willingly subject themselves to risk absent some other motivating factor....

@@themadmallard I agree that most people say they are risk averse, but also that most people are utter shit at assessing and mitigating risk. I’d argue the most dangerous thing about driving through a “bad” neighborhood is by far the driving itself, not the neighborhood. Instead, I’d say most people are “fear averse”, and assume that if they’re afraid, the thing they’re afraid of must be dangerous.

Crossfire

Instead of "safe", you should call these areas "safe and effective". Then if anyone disagrees, label them a conspiracy theorist and ban them from social media. Also, say that anyone who questions your app is a "science denier" and "literally killing grandma". And if anyone gets video-footage that proves crime happens in areas that you deemed safe, then label those "break-through crimes" and pretend they're rare, even if they're not.

If their your in a high crime area i doubt people will only do 1 or 2 illegal things, when a place become ruled by gangs its not just drjg selling that happen, there is vengeance and a lot of time the family of and friend of the person are concerned even if they don't do anything illegal

bruh, you literally give them a protection wtf? i thought this only happened with the mafia

@@Zack-fu4lo the Mafia is a literary abstraction of a part of human nature. protection rackets occur everywhere, even in corporate hierarchies.

#OMH

Finsbury is not the same as Finsbury Park. Finsbury is a very safe mainly commercial area in the City of London, dead central.

that'd work in some cities but would not work in others

My country is a developing nation and we do not have Google Street View.

@@luismadrigal-hidalgo my country has privacy laws and we don't have much Google Streetview and if so it's outdated anyways (Germany)

In Brazil even the unsafe regions are on street view

@@luismadrigal-hidalgo well, there you have it. a proposed solution is to leave your country immediately upon receiving this message /j

I think the moral of this story and the video is don’t go to Brazil😂

@@jamariiion bro i live there

@@thonnytrombonni1676 dam sorry my boy we going to save you👍🏽

​​@@thonnytrombonni1676 he's joking bro (and its not because he doesn't like Brazil)

I agree, don't rely solely on tech to navigate. It has well-known issues. Almost all my routes are mapped initially using digital maps like Google Maps, & then adjusted by me as needed. If I try a route & it has issues, I can write that down for future routing. I really need to find my old city map, so I can go fully paper routing.

*to

This should be common sense to me. I always google the unsafe areas and I’ve been safe in so many different countries and cities. Some places are known to be unsafe for women, and maybe I have to have a male walking with me like in India for example. Some places are only safe in the tourist spots. You just have to have awareness.

@@spookyblush-speedruns you can probably also ask around on forms about areas to avoid for extra information sources, would also help you avoid unnecessary social interaction if your not comfortable with asking strangers directly for information

100% there’s a lot of talk in the comments about ‘feeling unsafe’ but often non locals get into trouble when they feel safe in a dangerous place. i was was warned by someone that the place i was in wasn’t safe (on holiday) and i’ve told people that there’s no need to worry when i knew somewhere was safe. this isn’t really something you can codify into an area on a map or a notification

Let me see what it says for my city. I live in the suburb but I know 70% of the inner city will be marked in red lol

I just checked it out and it was pretty accurate except someone marked where I was born as “rich” instead of a crime hotspot. I don’t know if they’re trying to be funny, but they may get someone hurt that way lol

@@monicarenee7949 Do you live there now? Because in St. Petersburg, some areas that are marked as normal of rich, were quite bad 10-15 years ago

Thanks for recommending this. I live in Calgary and it's accurate to my knowledge and have me insights I wasn't aware of but seem accurate.

@@justinwhite2725 Happy you found it useful :) It also has a lot of funny ass things in it.

Well I guess I can say I got the first guess right and sort of the second one? Aye!? Lol

‘cross the street and walk into the Apple store and right through it to the back. then walk out the Apple store and across the road to the Adidas shop…’ haha

Wow it's so unfortunate that violent crime is so bad that residents feel the need for such an app! Hope the city can reduce crime without further worsening Inequality.

I feel like you know a place is dangerous when new years and july 4 sounds are most likely not fireworks

@@locomotivetrainstation6053 Fortunately around those times most of them are. Key word is "most", because not all of them are. They're probably more gunshots then I recognize then, because the fireworks sounds cover them up. People also ignore laws, so fireworks can happen any time of the year. Usually they're gunshots though, except for holidays.

@@rmt3589 oh I misread the comment

@@locomotivetrainstation6053 It's all good.

You don't think criminals don't already leave their hood to go burglarize, steal cars, and rob people? Are you not aware other people can problem solve? Also there is a reason why profiling works and will never go away. Criminals just get mad when they get caught in a place they obviously stand out in. Just like I would stand out as a target if I went to their hood.

The safe areas are likely safe due to police presence, lighting, and people

Crowdsourcing seems like it would be a fast track to legitimizing bigots' worldviews. Anyone can make a "danger" report, and there's no way to prove whether the report was legitimate or deliberately made by someone who seeks to ruin the reputation of areas inhabited by groups of people they don't like.

Agree

That's the obvious, easy and best solution which makes it so bizarre that his idea was to involve even more people into the problem. The solution is to simply map out the reasonable probability of a person being a victim of a specific type of crime and if that value is exceeded, then Google will just offer a different route as the "best" route. No flashy warnings of gangbangers or stranger danger. To start with, using per capita rating of violent crimes while accounting whether they're domestic in nature. Creating a layout of the expected rate of those crimes on a larger geographical scale as to not create pointless danger zones. Then Further finetuning with other metrics like demographics to account for things like a black girl walking through Compton vs a white girl doing the same. Regardless of how the problem is tackled, the public doesn't need to have any awareness of any of it happening in order to achieve the goal and bing bong, problem solved.

I mean the number of crimes reported doesn't always equal the number of crimes that occurred. Sometimes a crime happens and no one finds out until decades later, sometimes a cop has a bad day and just throws out charges. What crimes count as bad enough to be counted? Piracy is technically a crime but I wouldn't say a place is more dangerous because someone uploaded a mp4 of the latest marvel movie.

crowdsourcing would be good only if it was only used to direct police to patrol more frequently in areas that get reported often while keeping a crime per capita overlay that gets regularly updated with a set decay period so areas can show recovery if crime isnt reported after certain amounts of time pass with special exceptions for particularly bad areas

You mark the area as unsafe which leads to dropping prices which leads to low income recidents which leads to higher crime which leads to less people wanting to come into a neighbourhood... It's like gentrification, but in reverse. I wouldn't be suprised if it already worked like this in many areas.

So would the solution be to force innocent people into those dangerous areas? I mean fuck them right? If they get robbed, get hurt, or get murdered at least it didn't hurt the locals feelings!

@@cascadecontroller How to solve this problem?

@@ApofKol Actually maintaining public housing would be a great starting point.

@Deus Ex Machina or forcing landlors tu actually repair their house, and tenant to not destoy the house willingly (it does happen and no legal recourse at least where i live)

running a red light if you feel you're in danger isn't illegal, or, well, shouldn't in most emergency situations

Sounds like fun

thats one of the other problems with this map idea though, if an area is marked unsafe and a person still chooses to go that way, they might feel scared. scared people would probably break the law more, as you have done

@@L83467 that sounds completely up to the fruition of the person though, and I definitely would've taken an alternative route with hindsight. I'm also not actually for the idea of marking areas that are deemed unsafe on maps, just because I know how the stigma of growing poor up affects you

In your attempt to escape you probably brought yourself more attention lol, glad you are safe though.

Nah. You don't wanna be racist. Just try not to die or get robbed. Better for you to die than to hurt someone's feelings by avoiding their crime infested streets!

They should just fix inequality and make these areas safer

@@joshix833 sounds like a plan we'll get right on that but in the meantime let's just flipped the switch and make it so that innocent people can avoid dangerous areas and not get mugged or killed.

@@joshix833 Found the Marxist. Inequality has nothing to do with it. Some people are born animals.

@@timeassassin32 but that would make the inequality worse

Thank you Raffaele! Saw quite some of your videos too in the last years, good stuff! (Sent you a DM on Instagram, wanted to connect 🖖)

Yeah. The way he looks at it you could just as well complain that there are public crime records to being with Also dumb how apparently the feelings of people are more important to him then people not being murdered

Public crime records are ok as far as they go, but they are hardly perfect. People who make a defensive use of a gun in which nobody was hurt are often unlikely to make a report of the incident to police, typically not worth the bother involved. In extremely high crime areas, police may not bother to even take reports of most crimes, much less make arrests for most crimes, especially petty crimes, thus the area won't look as dangerous as it really is from the public records. Police can bribed to ignore crime or destroy records. Or as we saw in 2020 in the USA, for political reasons police chiefs or mayors may decide to just release extremely dangerous criminals without charging them, even if they are getting picked up by police multiple times, and without charges there is no record at all of the risk in the area. Or going the other direction as we see with Jan 6, lots of people getting the book thrown at them for extremely minor things, making an area look far more dangerous than it actually is. Now sure, in most areas the public crime records are a reasonably good approximation of the relative safety of the area, but it is exactly the areas where things are most likely to be the most risky where the public data is the most likely to be least reliable. That said, yeah, that is weak in my mind as well that people would be more concerned that an app like this will drive away tourists from an area rather than be concerned that the area is so dangerous in the first place and should be cleaned up. Unfortunately, we all know the "left" in western societies will moan on endlessly about how racist it is and make their demands and organize boycotts and who knows what all else. And companies in the west are, for whatever reason, absolutely terrified of this loud minority, even though they are in no way reflective of the majority of society. So as long as our society allows itself to be dominated by this loud minority, we're all kind of stuck with having to deal with these kinds of issues. So our host is not wrong to point it out, not necessarily because it makes sense, but because it is just the world we live in.

Yeah man, just like stop doing crime lol. It's that easy, thank you for enlightening me

@@fryphillipj560 That's not what was said and you know it. Nobody said criminals should stop doing crime, rather that non-criminals should figure out ways to drive out the criminals. And if they are helpeless to do so for whatever reason (say the police or government has sided with the criminals, common in parts of Mexico, for example), then they need to not complain when their areas are identified as extremely dangerous. In other words: put up or shut up. If you live in an area notorious for high rates of violent crime and you want to encourage tourists to come to your area, you are no better than the criminals. Perhaps even worse, as the criminals aren't bloody well going to be the ones luring people to the area, only the non-criminals can convincingly do that. Knowingly and intentionally drawing people to their doom, even if you personally aren't the trigger man, still makes you an evil person.

@@fryphillipj560 I mean yeah in certain circumstances the crimes are stopped by the bypassers we all know that. There are other simple things people can do to reduce crime in communities such as reporting suspicious activity, not accepting bribe, mentoring the youth, pushing local politicians, having surveillance cameras etc etc. If we didn't move our fingers because something is not so simple the society wouldn't exist, but i think you're too young to get that. You need growing up before you can be enlighten

I live in México too. I remember a time i have to go to a state i have never been and google maps took me to a road that loked okay at first. But halfway there it turns into a dirt road without any lighting next to the train tracks without enough space to turn around. The worst thing is that it happened in the afternoon and I was left in the dark on that road, which was also quite long. Google maps marked it as the best route to go.

Exactly what I was going to post. There's no tech bro solution to the effects of segregation, unless by some miracle they decide to their put money towards reparations.

well google aint a travel agent company is it, but surely they do advertise one. i got hotspots on my map that is labelled as tourist spots, with an image thumbnail on the pin, probably endorsed by the government

What's your example of a crime-ridden area that's also safe? lol

@@fran2911 idk central London?

@@fran2911 the point I’m trying to make is that by basically alienating “bad” areas of a city from tourism and visitors, you’re not giving that area any chance to improve, financially or otherwise. The chances of someone actually having a problem in a “bad” area of a city are slimmer than one might think.

All this would do it create a part of the city that is bustling with tourists and another part of the city that’s increasingly deprived with no chance to regenerate itself because the map says not to go there

@@bigdaddybulge4206 ah that makes sense, thanks for clarifying, your original comment sounded like a contradiction. I think there’s no really good way to implement a feature like this, I mean, you can access the data but it doesn’t tell you much, having a local as a reference is always the best move

sounds exactly like stackoverflow, that shit is madness

😏i think we all know who commits the most crime aye

@@hiroshimanagasaki616 Poor people?

Racist

@@hiroshimanagasaki616 the answer is immigrants bringing their incompatible culture, just look at sweden and denmark. R*pe more than doubled as muslims are responsible for over half of all r*pes...

So the map would basically highlight low income and black neighborhoods. You can go look these maps up. What would this accomplish exactly?

poorer neighbourhoods or those that are perceived as more dangerous have more police presence though, which leads to higher crime rates. its the same reason that African American people are arrested for violating marijuana possession laws at nearly four times the rates of white people, yet both ethnicities consume marijuana at roughly the same rates.

@@L83467 They don't actually consume at the same rates. Regardless, pulling police out of neighbourhoods with high murder rates won't make the murder rates go down. They're there due to the obscenely high murder rates.

Keeping people away from being murdered will probably do more good than harm.

I do this all the time too, it's useful if you know what to look for, but you can argue that for example, if you live somewhere with a lower standard of living, you might think a lot of places in the US are actually safe when they aren't. Or vice versa, you might be used to a higher standard of living and not know how to recognize worse off economic places from actual crime zones, happened to me in both scenarios

@@fran2911 It's part of learning hahaha

@ Yes, I agree, and you should always do your research before visiting a country hahaha

Sometimes the word sticks around long after it has any meaning anymore. Sometimes actions are being proactively taken in the area and are about to give fruits any day now. You can't get correct data about this stuff. And homeowners will sue your ass because of that, you're damaging their rent revenue and resale price based on hearsay. Sounds a lot like defamation. Also: redlining and how this would reinforce it. Also: if you base this stuff on polls, you know who will fill those polls? Karens. An army of karens.

@@frien_d Yes about the Karens But it can not be hersay if you bas this on actual officiall reports It is just an display of avilible raw data If you draw a heat map of car crashes to find areas that need improvement based on dokumentation of crashes that happend you don't use hersay, you just rework factual data to make them easyer understandible and quicker to interpret, you start with factual data and end with factual data the only difference is that the work of looking into every single case and displaying it in a more user friendly way has been done already

@@97oweb Did you just leave a comment to someone w/o making past the first minute in the video? He goes into the problem with heatmaps based on factual data at 1:11.

I miss being a child, the world and all it's problems seamed so much easier to fix back then.

It's the second one. It's easier, and it makes you feel like a victim, which is apparently a good thing now.

The road is long for 2.35m, but I really appreciate it!

True

This different video format was a bit of an experiment, glad to hear you liked it :🚀

agree

Yeah man, just don't be poor you fool lol

@@fryphillipj560 No. Get back to the basic building blocks of communities and civilization as a whole. Self governance and accountability. If these areas would practice even basic levels of self policing, accountability, and responsibility, then the very nature of human beings would quickly engage. That being capitalism in the true definition. Capitalism isn't a implementation of a system, it is the system that naturally emerges and the more organically it is allowed to grow the more effective, efficient, unbiased, and equality centric it will be. It has its disadvantages of course and like any structure it will eventually become predatory and will topple when it gets too heavy. These fuses are lit by interference in the market and all external interference is a fuse that will ultimately lead to a bomb that deforms, damages, or destroys part or all of the structural integrity. But back to community. The communities that we are discussing are their own detriment. Not in a stop being poor way, but in a stop making things worse way. These communities lose funding and buildings close and programs are cut for whatever reason... well what happens? The narrative is that government doesn't care so they cut funding or that the corporations deserted the communities or nobody will invest to help make the environment better. Yet when those things do happen what happens. The area improves and businesses may come back which provides jobs. Or investment money is having a positive impact so in turn more investments roll in. Unfortunately it never gets this far because cries of gentrification and exploitation push investors and businesses to areas that aren't accusing them of some form of depravity. Another example. The repeated talking point of policing. Either they don't care about the communities and make no efforts to....or they are targeting it. Both can't be true. In fact neither are true in the vast majority of cases. Police presence is almost always directly in correlation with crime. They go where the crime is. That isn't a matter of prejudice, it's a matter of logic. This is easily proven with loud voices and marches calling for justice and launching allegations of Indifference. Great example is the 2pac and biggie murders. I've watched a hundred documentaries and they always say the cops don't care about solving their cases.... however these same documentaries and those same community voices have cultivated the entire issue with the demonization of police cooperation. You can't scream for justice one minute and say snitches get stitches the next. Those two things don't work together. There isn't a cop standing there to see every murder. So they tend to rely on evidence. The evidence not only includes witness accounts and testimony but even the physical evidence is often discovered based on information provided. If the witnesses say snitches get stitches and f the police and refuse to cooperate... guess what! For the communities to improve they have to wish to improve. Self accountability and self policing. They have to want the criminal element out of the community to get it out. Regardless if it is your neighbors son or he is only 16 or even your own family. Crime drops when criminals drop. Businesses are willing to risk investing when crime drops. Job opportunities increase when businesses invest. Environment and housing improves when job quality increases. Schools increase when taxes from quality jobs are paid. Good teachers come to good schools. Good teachers develop after school programs. After school programs keep the kids occupied constructively. Constructive activities reduce the criminal element. Juvenile crime decreases combined with income improvement create educational opportunities for the next generation. They bring their skills back to the community rather than leave for safety. They invest in businesses and properties. Those properties are generational and the upward trending cycle is infinite. But it starts on your street.

@@fryphillipj560 "Won't someone think of the criminals!" Is one helluva pearl clutch gotta admit. You could just stop hurting people and none of this would be a problem.

@@BrettShadow I completly agree and you explaned it verry well, I was thinking almost the same but it was not that detailed in my head And to the origilal commend Why even switch to v2.0 Use v.10 and just apply both fixes

There is so much more to this than just hurting feelings

Just look at what they have to do to ai to keep it from being based.

@@paxluporum4447 DAN knows!

@@loreleihillard5078 But that's ultimately what it is. You don't want to make the people living in murderous neighbourhoods to feel sad about it.

@@MeanBeanComedy that is a part of it, sure. But having a company so prevalent as Google controlling where people go through based on things like this means that if a block/area had a particularly high crime rate, then only criminals would be still going there, as everyone else would avoid it. This would create little pockets of echo chambers for criminals, and hypothetically could increase the crime rates quite a bit overall as kids growing up in those areas would witness a lot more criminal activity and could spread that culture on to other places. Might not necessarily be that exact scenario, but it's likely something similar would happen

This sort of crime data is already available from police and government websites. How would Google re-publishing information that is already publicly available make any difference?

@@robotnoir5299 because you need to go out of your way to look up police information about that specific district. If it was showed on say google maps than people would be reminded DAILY about it being a dangerous location.

@@TheBard1999 So? Maybe that's a good thing if you get a friendly little reminder each day that your area is shitty, and you want to keep your wits about you. That's better than becoming complacent and getting mugged. I'm pretty sure people would rapidly become blasé about "dangerous areas" that are already part of their daily routine. It just wouldn't matter, coz people already know how rough their area is. No-one would really look at it, unless they were travelling to a foreign city, and aimlessly roaming to see the sights. Being more informed is always better than being less informed. Why make life unnecessarily hard by hiding useful information on a separate website to the standard map? What's next? Hiding the location of Walmarts, coz they suggest low-income areas, which causes discrimination? I certainly don't want a daily reminder that I live near Walmart... How embarrassing! But there it is, polluting my map! Oh, the shame! ;)

@@TheBard1999 I don't think you'll win that lawsuit.

Also, if Google marked an area unsafe and a person or city didn't agree or didn't like it they would sue. It could cost them a lot of money in legal bills.

i take issue with the responsibilty line of thinking but yeah, you're right, what is deemed as safe is different for different people. for example, central park karen thought she was threatened by that birdwatcher and so she called the cops on a totally innocent guy. the concept of danger is influenced by peoples biases

It's based off of violent crime rates.

@@L83467 He told her, "If you're going to do what you're going to do, I'm going to do what I'm going to do, and you're not going to like it." That's not something a man tells you a half-mile away from anyone else early in the morning and you just brush off. Dude was a creep. He even admitted he said that to her.

Ok now that's an interesting idea! On your last statement do you mean the companies do this accidentally or intentionally tho?

Everyone is sooooo scared to even admit some areas are unsafe lmao