UPDATE 6/18: a Google spokesperson said “This person left in 2021 and publicly stated they weren’t a decision maker – their posts don’t reflect the reality of product decisions for Google Maps, back then or now. In fact, we’ve launched many features to help people understand a route or find a scenic area – including Immersive View for routes which lets you explore places along the way, and the ability to search for “scenic spots near me” anywhere in the world. We’ll keep working on these types of features in the future.”
Original story follows:
According to a recently deleted post on X, Google Maps doesn’t offer a scenic route option due the risk of income loss in poor areas.
The thread in question comes from Kasey Klimes, who worked as a Senior UX Researcher for Google Maps between 2017 and 2021. He starts by stating that the current Google Maps algorithm is objective, and that any “shift towards “nice” or “scenic” routes is going to take some new subset of variables into account.”
The issue with this is that programming “scenic” variables would add an inherent bias into the system that would likely predominantly direct users through high-income areas due to the prevalence of those variables, for instance beautiful architecture or tree-lined streets.
This bias would then lead to Maps “inadvertently diverting foot traffic from low-income streets takes [and] tax dollars from struggling communities and funnels it instead to richer communities.”
Klimes’ thread (screengrabbed below) has now been deleted, and his X account is now locked. This is possibly due to intense attention from other users who disagree with his justifications, or perhaps Google intervened since it doesn’t want its development secrets being given away by ex-staffers.
