Cartographer compares Google Maps 2010 and 2016 (vs. 1965 RMcN)

[kurumi]

http://www.justinobeirne.com/essay/what-happened-to-google-maps

Three sets of samples, all showing the same thing: the number of cities shown on the maps has significantly decreased between 2010 and 2016.
...
If you look closely at the maps, the cities aren't the only thing that've changed. While the number of cities shown on the maps has decreased, the number of roads shown has actually increased.
...
The primary route across Long Island – Interstate 495 – is clearly shown as such on the 2010 map. But on the 2016 map, it's suddenly unclear: the newly upgraded roads muddle the map and 495 is lost amongst them. Worse, you can't even tell which road the "Interstate 495" icon belongs to.

The author, Justin O'Beirne, discusses wayfinding, information density, orphan cities, and even name-checks Edward Tufte. He led Apple's Maps team from 2011-2015.

My POV is that Google Maps is much more interested in steering you to a business these days and being a portal in general.

Though I do have to admit that the photo below is the most scenic part of Glastonbury CT. Google really nailed it:

[jeffandnicole]

Wow.  What a long article/blog...which basically says Google decided that showing route options are more important than cities at a certain zoom.

[kphoger]

Wow.  What a long article/blog...which basically says Google decided that showing route options are more important than cities at a certain zoom.

Boy, are you right about that!  A very long article which basically makes no more than three or four points.  I will say that I've been frustrated with figuring out exactly what zoom levels reveal labels for very small communities, but that's about it.  There was one good quote in the article, though:

One of my favorite Edward Tufte quotes is: "Clutter is not an attribute of information, clutter is a failure of design... fix the design rather than stripping all the detail out of the map."

[wxfree]

In the background of the article I can hear an old man yelling "stay off my lawn!" while he complains about how much better things were in the good old days.  Still, can anyone who loves maps tell me that the "Google-ized" version of the paper map isn't beautiful, or at least moreso than the real Google Maps?

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff63f0e4b0bafce6932642/t/57278f9a59827e5304ee4273/1462210489330/?format=1500w

I don't think my point is that there's anything wrong with making changes for electronic maps and optimization for different formats, but that the non-zoomable and non-optimizable nature of paper maps forces their makers to give them a certain beauty and elegance that maybe electronic maps don't have because they don't need it.