I have attached two views of the area I'm talking about in Alberta complete with captions.

1) One thing I don't like about Google maps is that there's no way to tell if a road is paved or gravel. Roads in Google are either white or yellow. Chances are the yellow roads are paved, but it's anybody's guess if the white roads are paved or not. In the attached images, some of the white roads are paved and some are not.

That's fine for someone just out cycling and exploring the area (as I've done), but if you're a cycletourist (and this is the Touring forum, in case anyone has forgotten), not knowing if a road is paved or not could be extremely frustrating.

2) Another thing I don't like about Google maps is that there is no way to tell if there are shoulders or what kind of traffic density there might be on the roads.

Most of the primary roads in Alberta (Google's yellow roads) have wide paved shoulders. But not all. As it happens, Hwy 54 is one of the few highways that has inconsistent shoulders. From Innisfail to about halfway between Spruce View and Caroline there isn't much in the way of shoulders, and there is quite heavy traffic. Take it from me, it is not a pleasant road to ride on. There is an alternative route which is quite pleasant, but you'd never know it from Google maps.

3) And then there's the inaccuracy ... how could they miss an entire lake and a dam??

The story of this 300K describes the alternate route over Dickson Dam, and I've got a few photos of the dam.
http://www.machka.net/2008/2008_300_RedDeer.htm


IMO Google should first work on improving their accuracy. When they've got accurate maps, then it would be helpful to know which roads are paved and which are not. When they've figured out a way differentiate between paved and gravel, then they might look at showing shoulder width and traffic density. Once they've done all that, then they might focus on bicycle paths, sidewalks, etc. IMO that progression would be the most useful for cycletourists ... and cyclists in general.