Comparisons of 3 Mapping Tools

Google Fusion Table

BatchGeo

MapMe

After creating point maps of sample lunch data on three different tools, I have learned that BatchGeo is the easiest to use, while MapMe is much more flexible, and Google Fusion Table is the middle ground of the other two.

In less than five minutes, I could create a nice map on BatchGeo by copying the data on the website. However, the downside for this is that I did not have the chance to customize my map. The info windows are fixed, and I cannot change the point size and display. Therefore, BatchGeo is recommended for people who need to make a simple map quickly.

On the other hand, MapMe offers users many choices of map display. I could customize the info windows and symbols for the points on the map. I could decide the map type and even upload a map logo. There are also more tools, which I hope to learn more in the semester. Unfortunately, MapMe is not very user-friendly and efficient. The tool is rigid in terms of importing data. The website did not allow me to create a map until all the locations in my data are formatted correctly. So I had to add one address at a time. Though adding an address is not hard because the site suggested the right location very quickly, this will not be efficient if I’m working with some data with many addresses. Thus, MapMe is suitable for those who want a customized map and do not mind spending some time working on it.

For me, Google Fusion Table is the middle ground between BatchGeo and MapMe. Google Fusion Table is easy to use. I could create a map after uploading data and pick the right column for the geocoding process. I can also customize my info windows and points, though not as flexibly as MapMe. So if an user is looking for an user-friendly and flexible tool, he or she can choose Google Fusion Table to create a map.