...the same maps San Bernardino police officers utilize...

Huh?

Do they have a different interpretation of the streets and parks and rivers and highways than the streets and parks and rivers and highways that Google uses?

This is a wonderous thing. My map is better than yours - but both maps show the same features, in the same places, and most likely use virtually identical names.

The Earth is the Earth is the Earth, people.

You know, I think we're all missing the point here. (this is not an ad-hominem attack on Mr. Marble...this is a 'rattle the cages of the status quo' sort of note)

I get the whole idea of the same map for the decision makers as the citizens might see later. I think we (and I say we because if you're reading this you are clearly a major geo-nerd)

But you know what? I've yet to meet "a decisionmaker" in government that comfortable publishing their source materials openly...unless the information is really, really sanitized and vetted through the PR folks.

At the end of the day, I think it really shouldn't matter that a map appears online that uses Google tools and locates the scene of a scene on the corner of 12th Street and Vine...and it looks all Googly-cool and gets the information to the public. And the information is DONE FAST (as in the SoCal fires, published by the local radio station) vs. "the decisionmakers" publishing on 'The Right Map' with 'The Official Location' using 'professional' tools.

I get the common operating picture thing. I get authoritative sources. I get the idea that more precise and accurate maps make for better decisions. I get all that. I think we all get all that.

BTW - the vendor supplying the streets to Google in the US is Teleatlas...who sources a huge proportion of their original data from the very counties and cities that we're discussing here. It's a descendent program from when Teleatlas was known as GDT. If you ran an eval of the content on Google against the engineering-based sources used in a typical 'professional' GIS program, I suspect the naming differences might be 1-2%, and the accuracy is better than 2-3meters. Does that fit the world as it is known in most cities, where most people live? Sure. Does that fit the world illustrated with 1ft, 2ft, and 1m imagery? Sure.

I think 'we' are not getting the fact that for the VAST proportion of society, telling me where something is with a simple map NOW that is more than accurate enough (and also includes a really FAST routing capability so I can figure out how to leave the area is infinitely more useful than 'higher quality' data from professional sources.

And the chances are, these days the quality of the original database is not a lot different than what you'll find on Google.

At the end of the day, a map is only useful if people can find it and use it.