As always with this kind of stuff, there are so many inaccuracies, at least in the parts I know of. Roads are mostly ok, although some of them are more like "suppositions" that real roads we have found. Let's take a look at the area around Valladolid: https://imgur.com/xMW6yiY
- Pintia is almost confirmed to be near the Duero/Douro river, much more to the south and to the east. It is one of the most explored pre-Roman settlements in the area and while there has not been a definitive proof, there are many hints that show that it's on the place I showed and not where it's shown on the map
- Amallobriga is also, for most historians, located in Tiedra, but it shows Tordesillas. As you can see on the map, the actual location of Tiedra is also a road intersection. The location in Tiedra is consistent with archeological evidence and with route books that show the distance from Amallobriga to other cities we know.
- Nobody really knows where Intercatia or Tela are. But note that a there's a big road intersection at the south. It is confirmed that there was a settlement but we do not know the name of it, several have been proposed. In any case, Intercatia is very difficult to be located as it is shown in the map with no roads going to it. Many archaeologists say it could be in the actual town of Paredes de Nava.
- I don't think there's any real evidence of a bridge that crosses the Douro/Duero river there. What we know is that there's a medieval bridge closer to Septimanca and that it could have had a Roman origin, but according to the map there's no road there.
I was wondering the same thing about the road crossing the Douro between present-day Vila Nova de Gaia and Porto. Was there a bridge there during Roman times? Interestingly, it would be right where the Luiz I Bridge is now.
After a quick research, there's no evidence of a bridge there and it seems difficult to do even for Romans. But there could have been some people with boats in Cale to help cross the river and still be considered part of the road.
I know that not too long ago there was a "bridge", which was a bunch of boats aligned from one margin to the other. Not sure if this counts as a bridge.
The title is wrong, as this is not Google's maps, but the beautiful and much more responsive Mapbox maps. Please fix your title.
Also it is high time for everyone to understand that not every map out there is goog's and more importantly - there are at least 5 providers of mappings software that do it either better or likewise well, and these guys' work needs to be respected. In fact it is very likely that gmaps would rate very low if one is to rank it considering usability (APIs including), licensing, speed and quality of the render.
This is partly the fault of the researchers themselves for not including any attribution to OpenStreetMap, even though they are using OpenStreetMap data to render everything but the Roman roads.
And this is important stuff, as people should respect and pay proper attribution to those working painstakingly to actually enable everyone with all the wonderful mapping libs and content.
This project uses OpenStreetMap to render the (present day) natural features and (if enabled as a setting) the current road network.
Unfortunately, Brughmans, de Soto, and Pažout neglected to include the legally required attribution for this use of OpenStreetMap data (via Mapbox). This is a shame, because these kind of projects are great to show people that there is more than just Google Maps.
How come nobody ever cares to disambiguate vendors? Or perhaps they do...
And yes, let me overstate it - Google is not part of anything related to this research, and for their valuable contribution, overall and in particular, they are very kindly not mentioned in the paper.
But guys here don't care about peculiar details, no?
Interestingly, the interesting (pun intended) topic did not rise the very obvious question - is the data open. Well, idk, but is at least downloadable.
It might sound dumb to say, but modernity has abstracted away mountains and rivers enough that when I look at a map like this, I find myself just kinda fixated on the topography, how it shaped history, and how people worked around it when dynamite and airplanes and steel bridges weren't Things yet.
For my part, the Romans never went more than halfway up the Netherlands, meaning the north ("above the rivers") is culturally somewhat different from the south, although the cultures did converge over time. But "below" the rivers is still generally Catholic wheras "above" is Protestant. For example.
Nice map, though it uses the current river and land layout. Half of what was Batavia was inpassable wetland and the rivers followed a different path likely more following the roads.
As someone who works in web mapping, I have to quibble with "The Google Maps of...". This is just an interactive map - it doesn't have features that particularly resemble Google Maps, particularly navigation.
A bit of work on the UI would make this a really fun and interesting tool - currently it seems to be intended for people who know a lot about the dataset already.
Navigation is supported, with travel times given for walking, ox cart, pack animal and horse. The feature is a bit hidden: you need to click the place marker at the bottom right.
Nice!
It's interesting to see the major travel hubs and how they can differ from modern ones, for example Durocortorum (Reims) and Augustobona (Troyes) in France, as well as Verulamium (St. Albans) in England.
It would be nice to be able to use Streetview or similar to see how the roads look today (where they still exist).
Hug of death? I can't wait to explore the roads of Gaul tomorrow. I spent a great autumn in the village of Bétaille, Lot, and to walk the local roads you could imagine Roman legions fighting the army of Vercingetorix in the fields.
Perhaps we can finally figure out the exact location of that one stubborn village which was never conquered. It should have a visible ring of roads linking the surrounding Roman outposts around it…
Interesting, but it'd be even better if it was the OpenStreenMap of Roman Roads instead of Google Maps because like some already mentioned I could easily spot inaccuracies in my local area and a collaborative effort could fix that.
You can click on a road segment and get some info about it so the first step would be to add a way to contact its author to suggest improvements.
For example I know of some hidden ruins of a very ancient bridge where my local roman road crossed the river with two paths that show where the road on both sides would have been instead of where the road cross the river on the segment.
Source title is "Digital Atlas" not "Google Maps"; the change in the submission violates the HN guidelines against editorialization and preferring using the source title unless that title is itself misleading clickbait.
How far would I get when I planned a road trip using this? There are so many Roman roads still in existence (paved over of course), this might just be a usable map!
As always with this kind of stuff, there are so many inaccuracies, at least in the parts I know of. Roads are mostly ok, although some of them are more like "suppositions" that real roads we have found. Let's take a look at the area around Valladolid: https://imgur.com/xMW6yiY
- Pintia is almost confirmed to be near the Duero/Douro river, much more to the south and to the east. It is one of the most explored pre-Roman settlements in the area and while there has not been a definitive proof, there are many hints that show that it's on the place I showed and not where it's shown on the map
- Amallobriga is also, for most historians, located in Tiedra, but it shows Tordesillas. As you can see on the map, the actual location of Tiedra is also a road intersection. The location in Tiedra is consistent with archeological evidence and with route books that show the distance from Amallobriga to other cities we know.
- Nobody really knows where Intercatia or Tela are. But note that a there's a big road intersection at the south. It is confirmed that there was a settlement but we do not know the name of it, several have been proposed. In any case, Intercatia is very difficult to be located as it is shown in the map with no roads going to it. Many archaeologists say it could be in the actual town of Paredes de Nava.
- I don't think there's any real evidence of a bridge that crosses the Douro/Duero river there. What we know is that there's a medieval bridge closer to Septimanca and that it could have had a Roman origin, but according to the map there's no road there.
I was wondering the same thing about the road crossing the Douro between present-day Vila Nova de Gaia and Porto. Was there a bridge there during Roman times? Interestingly, it would be right where the Luiz I Bridge is now.
After a quick research, there's no evidence of a bridge there and it seems difficult to do even for Romans. But there could have been some people with boats in Cale to help cross the river and still be considered part of the road.
I know that not too long ago there was a "bridge", which was a bunch of boats aligned from one margin to the other. Not sure if this counts as a bridge.
Fords and ferries were pretty common in Roman Britain, perhaps it was common to the provinces.
The title is wrong, as this is not Google's maps, but the beautiful and much more responsive Mapbox maps. Please fix your title.
Also it is high time for everyone to understand that not every map out there is goog's and more importantly - there are at least 5 providers of mappings software that do it either better or likewise well, and these guys' work needs to be respected. In fact it is very likely that gmaps would rate very low if one is to rank it considering usability (APIs including), licensing, speed and quality of the render.
The “the” and the “of” are of more importance in this particular sequence/structure: => “the X of Y”
the Google Maps is being used to frame or position the sites intent of a data rich maps site of Roman Roads
Fair point, but respecting the page's own title would have been better and avoided much confusion (just look at the comments here):
"Itiner-e – The Digital Atlas of Ancient Roads"
I don’t see many people being confused.
This is partly the fault of the researchers themselves for not including any attribution to OpenStreetMap, even though they are using OpenStreetMap data to render everything but the Roman roads.
And this is important stuff, as people should respect and pay proper attribution to those working painstakingly to actually enable everyone with all the wonderful mapping libs and content.
And Goog does none of this to deserve any credit.
Especially since their own licence for this project's data (the Roman roads), is CC-BY.
This project uses OpenStreetMap to render the (present day) natural features and (if enabled as a setting) the current road network.
Unfortunately, Brughmans, de Soto, and Pažout neglected to include the legally required attribution for this use of OpenStreetMap data (via Mapbox). This is a shame, because these kind of projects are great to show people that there is more than just Google Maps.
So much fun putting this map next to a modern one and looking at where I'm from in Croatia.
West of Jajce in Bosnia there's a ring of roads that hasn't changed for 2000 years.
I wonder if there's a missing roman settlement under Sarajevo, considering the roads there match so well and the size of the city.
Relevant paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-06140-z (Itiner-e: A high-resolution dataset of roads of the Roman Empire)
Google is never mentioned in this paper.
? How did conversation about an interesting topic get this sidetracked
How come nobody ever cares to disambiguate vendors? Or perhaps they do...
And yes, let me overstate it - Google is not part of anything related to this research, and for their valuable contribution, overall and in particular, they are very kindly not mentioned in the paper.
But guys here don't care about peculiar details, no?
Interestingly, the interesting (pun intended) topic did not rise the very obvious question - is the data open. Well, idk, but is at least downloadable.
It got sidetracked by the submitter themselves by mislabeling it as “Google Maps of Roman Roads”.
It might sound dumb to say, but modernity has abstracted away mountains and rivers enough that when I look at a map like this, I find myself just kinda fixated on the topography, how it shaped history, and how people worked around it when dynamite and airplanes and steel bridges weren't Things yet.
This is a great thing to put next to e.g. voting maps, language, religion, etc - https://www.reddit.com/r/phantomborders/ is fascinating sometimes.
For my part, the Romans never went more than halfway up the Netherlands, meaning the north ("above the rivers") is culturally somewhat different from the south, although the cultures did converge over time. But "below" the rivers is still generally Catholic wheras "above" is Protestant. For example.
The line on Great Britain is very clear. Scotland might not exist today if the Romans had conquered the whole island.
Nice map, though it uses the current river and land layout. Half of what was Batavia was inpassable wetland and the rivers followed a different path likely more following the roads.
As someone who works in web mapping, I have to quibble with "The Google Maps of...". This is just an interactive map - it doesn't have features that particularly resemble Google Maps, particularly navigation.
A bit of work on the UI would make this a really fun and interesting tool - currently it seems to be intended for people who know a lot about the dataset already.
Navigation is supported, with travel times given for walking, ox cart, pack animal and horse. The feature is a bit hidden: you need to click the place marker at the bottom right.
Travel advisory: possible disruptions on the road due to armies of vandals.
Nice! It's interesting to see the major travel hubs and how they can differ from modern ones, for example Durocortorum (Reims) and Augustobona (Troyes) in France, as well as Verulamium (St. Albans) in England.
It would be nice to be able to use Streetview or similar to see how the roads look today (where they still exist).
Hug of death? I can't wait to explore the roads of Gaul tomorrow. I spent a great autumn in the village of Bétaille, Lot, and to walk the local roads you could imagine Roman legions fighting the army of Vercingetorix in the fields.
Perhaps we can finally figure out the exact location of that one stubborn village which was never conquered. It should have a visible ring of roads linking the surrounding Roman outposts around it…
SPQR - Sono pazzi questi romani!
These Romans are crazy!
Interesting, but it'd be even better if it was the OpenStreenMap of Roman Roads instead of Google Maps because like some already mentioned I could easily spot inaccuracies in my local area and a collaborative effort could fix that.
You can click on a road segment and get some info about it so the first step would be to add a way to contact its author to suggest improvements.
For example I know of some hidden ruins of a very ancient bridge where my local roman road crossed the river with two paths that show where the road on both sides would have been instead of where the road cross the river on the segment.
Street view would be nice.
(SCNR)
Source title is "Digital Atlas" not "Google Maps"; the change in the submission violates the HN guidelines against editorialization and preferring using the source title unless that title is itself misleading clickbait.
How far would I get when I planned a road trip using this? There are so many Roman roads still in existence (paved over of course), this might just be a usable map!
Also worth looking at this very UK take:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44622543
Every road I clicked on was categorized as "conjectured", so no direct proof exists.
The route for the Via Cassia is at odds with all the literature on the subject.
Two macroscopic problems are:
1. The only variant given is between Bolsena and Fabro. There is nothing about later routes to the west of Valdichiana and to the left of the Arno.
2. The section between Arezzo and Cascia used the exact route of the modern Setteponti, which was certainly not the case.
Beyond these errors, every section I have checked in detail for the Cassia contains inexact info.
“Home to Rome”
[dead]