5 ms·

Nice effort, but still needs a lot of work. This view of the western US picks out four coastal cities worthy of mention: "Tijuana" (fine), "Los Angele" (sic!),

Nice effort, but still needs a lot of work. This view of the western US picks out four coastal cities worthy of mention: "Tijuana" (fine), "Los Angele" (sic!), "San Jose" (err..) and "Calgary" (wat). No San Francisco, no Seattle, no Vancouver... https://maps.wikimedia.org/#4/40.15/-93.38 https://maps.wikimedia.org/#4/40.15/-93.38 Scripts are also all over the place. Japan is Japanese only, China is Chinese only, India is English, Bangladesh is Bengali, Pakistan is partly Urdu and English, the Arab countries are totally inconsistent...

chc 11y ago
Seems worth noting, it does have the right name for Los Angeles — the label is just running into Phoenix.
- xnyhps 11y ago
  Looks like a boundary between tiles there: https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/2/6.png https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/2/6.png https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/3/6.png https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/3/6.png Placing labels on a map is quite a hard problem, especially when certain tiles are refreshed.
sehugg 11y ago
I'm guessing it's because San Jose and Calgary have over 1M population -- the cities of SFO and Seattle proper do not.
haldean 11y ago
If you're going on population, San Jose is the biggest city in the Bay Area; in that sense, it makes sense to pick it as the "one that wins" in a very dense area. Calgary is around 1M people and Tijuana is 1.3M, while Seattle and Vancouver are each around 600k. Those choices seem pretty reasonable to me.
- robbrown451 11y ago
  San Jose is bigger than San Francisco only because its city limits occupy far more area. San Francisco is a bigger population center.
  - bla2 11y ago
    …do you live in San Francisco?
    - zbraniecki 11y ago
      I do. How can I help you? :)
  - desdiv 11y ago
    >San Francisco >Population >City and county 852,469 >Metro 4,594,060 >CSA 8,607,423 > >San Jose >Population >City 1,015,785 >Metro 1,952,872 >CSA 8,607,423 Colloquially, "population" refers to either the metropolitan area population or the CSA population, or something in between. But since different countries have different concepts and definitions for "metro area", it can't be relied on for a global map. The only thing remotely portable in this case is "how many people live within the city limits". And by that measure, San Jose is indeed bigger than San Francisco. San Francisco doesn't even get a mention because its population within city limits is below one million - the cut-off line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California
  - smsm42 11y ago
    It sounds like you argue that because San Jose is bigger both by territory and by population, somehow that makes San Francisco truly bigger. However, if it's bigger in both, it only makes sense the map algorithm chooses it to display on lower resolutions. I don't think going by population density is that common.
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago
bbarn 11y ago
Milwaukee loses the last letter too at certain zooms. Oddly nothing but the lake to its right though.

chc 11y ago

Seems worth noting, it does have the right name for Los Angeles — the label is just running into Phoenix.

xnyhps 11y ago
Looks like a boundary between tiles there: https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/2/6.png https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/2/6.png https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/3/6.png https://maps.wikimedia.org/osm-intl/4/3/6.png Placing labels on a map is quite a hard problem, especially when certain tiles are refreshed.

sehugg 11y ago

I'm guessing it's because San Jose and Calgary have over 1M population -- the cities of SFO and Seattle proper do not.

haldean 11y ago

If you're going on population, San Jose is the biggest city in the Bay Area; in that sense, it makes sense to pick it as the "one that wins" in a very dense area. Calgary is around 1M people and Tijuana is 1.3M, while Seattle and Vancouver are each around 600k. Those choices seem pretty reasonable to me.

robbrown451 11y ago
San Jose is bigger than San Francisco only because its city limits occupy far more area. San Francisco is a bigger population center.
- bla2 11y ago
  …do you live in San Francisco?
  - zbraniecki 11y ago
    I do. How can I help you? :)
- desdiv 11y ago
  >San Francisco >Population >City and county 852,469 >Metro 4,594,060 >CSA 8,607,423 > >San Jose >Population >City 1,015,785 >Metro 1,952,872 >CSA 8,607,423 Colloquially, "population" refers to either the metropolitan area population or the CSA population, or something in between. But since different countries have different concepts and definitions for "metro area", it can't be relied on for a global map. The only thing remotely portable in this case is "how many people live within the city limits". And by that measure, San Jose is indeed bigger than San Francisco. San Francisco doesn't even get a mention because its population within city limits is below one million - the cut-off line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California
- smsm42 11y ago
  It sounds like you argue that because San Jose is bigger both by territory and by population, somehow that makes San Francisco truly bigger. However, if it's bigger in both, it only makes sense the map algorithm chooses it to display on lower resolutions. I don't think going by population density is that common.
JumpCrisscross 11y ago

bbarn 11y ago

Milwaukee loses the last letter too at certain zooms. Oddly nothing but the lake to its right though.