Don't Back Down

With the recent release of Virtual Earth, it would seem that the gauntlet has been thrown. While my instinct is to like Google Maps better, I think they are actually really close to one another. If you'd like to see some comparisons, check out this side-by-side viewer that lets you compare them.

First thought: It seems that Virtual Earth is a bit dated in some of their satellite imagery. About everyone has heard that they have pictures of the World Trade Center towers. So it's at least 4 years old. My yard (in both) appears to be about the same, and I would guess that it's probably 3-4 years old as well. There are a number of trees in the image that haven't been there for a while. Do they work? Sure.

I have to say that I like Virtual Earth's persistent state - when I go back, it leaves me just where I was the last time. Do I care all the time? Probably not. But I like it better as a default than Google's country-wide view. I don't think Virtual Earth offers driving directions - if they do, it's not obvious. And in general, markers seem to be better in Google Maps.

However, the satellite imagery itself on Virtual Earth seems to not only scale more, but be a better quality than that of Google. So I can't zoom in as much, and when I do, the image isn't quite as clear. Speaking of clarity, the street names in Virtual Earth generally seem to be a bit more legible than those in Google Maps. Though the one-way arrows on the Google images are very helpful. Great idea.

Finally, the Google Map bookmarks feature is nice to have, and I like the mashups that have appeared for it as well - but I'd suppose that Virtual Earth will have its own set before too long, as soon as people have a chance to play with the API. And while I don't think that Yahoo! Maps are even close in terms of quality, the option to show things on the map, such as hotels and the like, is very nice.