4 ms·
One of these is far nicer and clearer than the other: http://alastaira.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image3.png http://alastaira.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/imag
by randallsquared 15y ago
One of these is far nicer and clearer than the other:
http://alastaira.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image3.png http://alastaira.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image3.png
http://alastaira.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image4.png http://alastaira.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image4.png
Apple's version comes up really lacking in comparison to the default OSM one, which I would call gorgeous, personally.
- dochtman 15y agoMeh. I love what OSM is doing, but IMO their tile style doesn't hold a candle to Google's (but then I dislike Apple's style here, as well).
- lbotos 15y agoAnyone can make their own tiles with things like tilemill (http://mapbox.com/tilemill/ http://mapbox.com/tilemill/)
- tseabrooks 15y agoI find the OSM one to be way way to busy. I think the Google tiles provide better information clarity + attractiveness value. However, I still maintain those new apple tiles are gorgeous, the way an antique map is gorgeous. I never claimed it provided more information; It's clearly providing less information. But aesthetics and function are separate vectors.
- RandallBrown 15y agoOSM is trying to give you directions, Apple is trying to show you the general area of where a photo was taken. I like that Apple is throwing away some of the information to make it look a little nicer. In a map app though, this would be stupid.
- ajross 15y agoI think your broad point is valid (brevity and concision are virtues). But in this specific situation your way off, sorry. That photo was taken in a park. In one of those maps that fact is abundantly clear. In the other it's not. Hell, in the apple map the trails look like roads. How on earth could anyone call that "clear"?