11 ms·

Learning more about OSM is something I've been meaning to do for a while, but I'll commit time and do it, because I think it's a great project. That said, ever

by latch 13y ago

Learning more about OSM is something I've been meaning to do for a while, but I'll commit time and do it, because I think it's a great project. That said, every time I look at an OSM map, I find them uglier and far less usable than google maps. Here's the Sochi example using OSM's Transport layer (which is less cluttered): http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7263&layers=T http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7263&layers=... vs: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sochi&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=58.294644,99.580078&z=16 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sochi&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677... If I had to navigate Sochi, I would overwhelmingly prefer Google's version. It's cleaner, has better contrast and a number of subtle touches (english translations, one-way arrows, ...). When I travel, I always download offline OSM maps, in case, but eagerly get a SIM card with a data plan and switch to Google Maps (and I suddenly find myself better oriented).

karl42 13y ago
The "MapQuest Open" layer seems better for a comparison to gmaps: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7263&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7263&layers=...
- kozhevnikov 13y ago
  For the sake of comparison -- Yandex (Russia's top search engine) http://maps.yandex.com/-/CVfuFU67 http://maps.yandex.com/-/CVfuFU67
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    I notice that they all (Google, OSM, Yandex) have comprehensive coverage of buildings and house numbers (though you might have to zoom to see them). I'm guessing this is open government data that's been imported, as I don't recall seeing them in the UK much.
    - twelvechairs 13y ago
      Uk have a bit of a legacy mess of systems. they use ordinance survey for mapping which is quite detailed for physical features (roads, fences, woods, buildings) but often doesn't provide actual property boundaries. they charge quite a lot (for reasonable reasons in some industries) to access this. the post office hold a separate database (also costly) of real addresses
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  It's better, but still meh. Example: LOOK, BOYS AND GIRLS! THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING!!! http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.74822/-73.98776&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.74822/-73.98776&laye... Google: http://goo.gl/maps/jvgJf http://goo.gl/maps/jvgJf
yellowbkpk 13y ago
The point of OpenStreetMap is that we provide the data and you provide (or you use services that provide) an interpretation of the data that's useful to you. The rendering style you picked is certainly different than Google's. MapQuest Open's rendering style is pretty darn close to the Google Maps link you pointed at [0], and other map providers like MapBox let you build maps with styling how you like it in just a few clicks (including picking English labels when known). I made one just now [1]. We don't do a great job of making the point when you arrive at osm.org, but we aren't competing with Google Maps. We're competing with Navteq/Nokia and other map data providers. [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7236&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7236&layers=... [1] https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/iandees.h675i5pf/page.html?secure=1#16/43.5882/39.7211 https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/iandees.h675i5pf/page.html?sec...
- mratzloff 13y ago
  On my iPhone, all the text and graphics are highly pixelated for the links you provide. Any idea why?
  - girvo 13y ago
    On my iPad Mini Retina on iOS 7.0.4 they look perfectly fine for me, I wonder what's wrong there?
  - pipeep 13y ago
    I don't why Mapbox's tiles would be pixelated (except that they might have the preview page misconfigured), but I don't think Mapquest Open supports retina tiles yet. A solution is to make the tiles half the size, but then all the labels are tiny. In addition to this, I dislike Mapquest Open's tiles because they're subject to jpeg compression. Unfortunately, it's the only free tile service out there without usage limits.
- sneak 13y ago
  > We don't do a great job of making the point when you arrive at osm.org, but we aren't competing with Google Maps. We're competing with Navteq/Nokia and other map data providers. If you want seven billion people using it, it's going to be quite necessary to create a consumer-facing canonical front-end. I'm sure you can get lots of volunteer hackers to contribute if you throw up an MVP on github.
dhritzkiv 13y ago
Something like https://www.mapbox.com https://www.mapbox.com may help
- latch 13y ago
  Sure, I didn't know about that until someone else pointed it out to me just now. I agree it's a beautiful rendering. It's paid though. That point aside, Sneak said what I meant to. If the goal is to have 7 billion people using OSM, this needs to be out of the box / default. Usability can't be an afterthought or something that's left up to the developer (if the goal is that sort of penetration)
  - davexunit 13y ago
    You still don't seem to understand. There's nothing that comes "out of the box". The OSM project provides the data, that's it. Use the map provider that you like best to visualize that data.
  - ris 13y ago
    Thanks for this piece of insight. Nobody in OSM's community of many thousands had ever brought it up before. The reality is that if OSM is to scale to 7 billion users it itself can _not_ be the provider of all the tiles. The amount of infrastructure that this would require would be prohibitive for a nonprofit. Rendering & serving map tiles isn't like serving wikipedia pages.
  - Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
    n people using OSM the dataset, _not_ n people using osm.org.
  - chippy 13y ago
    use != going to the website
  - rmc 13y ago
    Yes it's paid, because it's storing and rendering images that are updated by the minute in a very fast time. That sort of compution, and calculation isn't cheap. As you can see the compressed file format is about 25GB.
morsch 13y ago
Using the transport layer is a bit of an odd choice for this comparison. The regular layer has the one-way arrows, as well as a wealth of other details: foot paths, parking areas, bus stops. I suppose that does makes it look a bit cluttered, but still to me in this instance OSM is clearly superior.
- latch 13y ago
  As you say, that extra detail makes it cluttered. I can only speak for myself, but having traveled to completely foreign locations, that extra clutter (that paradox of choice) just adds to the confusion and overwhelmingness of unknown territory. When I look at OSM for a city that I know well, i'm not nearly as overwhelmed and I do find the information quite handy. Two different use cases, I guess.
untog 13y ago
As a counterpoint, take a look at the map of Sochi's Olympic Mountain Cluster: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?lon=40.29583&lat=43.67232&zoom=13&num=2&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?lon=40.29583&lat=43.67232&zoom... Yes, the OSM map is busier. Because it has the entire Olympic venue on it, wheras Google Maps shows it as empty space. Open, contribution-friendly data is a great thing.
nicktelford 13y ago
Google Maps is less cluttered because it's displaying far less information. In the Sochi example, take a look at the park to the left. OSM displays all the footpaths in the park, Google Maps display none. This is a running theme: all the red dashed lines are pedestrian rights of way that Google simply doesn't know about. What if you wanted to cross the railway line on foot? You'd be out of luck with Google Maps... And while we're looking at the railway, notice anything missing from Google Maps? Only the largest road (looks to be a highway) on the map! It seems like this is new and has yet to be added by the Google Maps team. OSM has been shown to have more detailed data for many Asian and European countries (like Russia, in our example) than Google Maps, and this serves to make those maps "look more cluttered". But if I was visiting Sochi, I know which map I'd rather be using.
the_imp 13y ago
> If I had to navigate Sochi, I would overwhelmingly prefer Google's version. Do note that then you might miss a few details that Google doesn't yet include, like, say, the highway A-148 that now goes through the centre of town...
alextingle 13y ago
Except Google's version seems to be missing all of the new roads they've built for the Olympics. That's why you use OSM, not because it's prettier, but because it has more detail, and it's more up to date.

by latch 13y ago

karl42 13y ago

The "MapQuest Open" layer seems better for a comparison to gmaps: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7263&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7263&layers=...

kozhevnikov 13y ago
For the sake of comparison -- Yandex (Russia's top search engine) http://maps.yandex.com/-/CVfuFU67 http://maps.yandex.com/-/CVfuFU67
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  I notice that they all (Google, OSM, Yandex) have comprehensive coverage of buildings and house numbers (though you might have to zoom to see them). I'm guessing this is open government data that's been imported, as I don't recall seeing them in the UK much.
  - twelvechairs 13y ago
    Uk have a bit of a legacy mess of systems. they use ordinance survey for mapping which is quite detailed for physical features (roads, fences, woods, buildings) but often doesn't provide actual property boundaries. they charge quite a lot (for reasonable reasons in some industries) to access this. the post office hold a separate database (also costly) of real addresses
fennecfoxen 13y ago
It's better, but still meh. Example: LOOK, BOYS AND GIRLS! THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING!!! http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.74822/-73.98776&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.74822/-73.98776&laye... Google: http://goo.gl/maps/jvgJf http://goo.gl/maps/jvgJf

yellowbkpk 13y ago

The point of OpenStreetMap is that we provide the data and you provide (or you use services that provide) an interpretation of the data that's useful to you. The rendering style you picked is certainly different than Google's. MapQuest Open's rendering style is pretty darn close to the Google Maps link you pointed at [0], and other map providers like MapBox let you build maps with styling how you like it in just a few clicks (including picking English labels when known). I made one just now [1]. We don't do a great job of making the point when you arrive at osm.org, but we aren't competing with Google Maps. We're competing with Navteq/Nokia and other map data providers. [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7236&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.5883/39.7236&layers=... [1] https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/iandees.h675i5pf/page.html?secure=1#16/43.5882/39.7211 https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/iandees.h675i5pf/page.html?sec...

mratzloff 13y ago
On my iPhone, all the text and graphics are highly pixelated for the links you provide. Any idea why?
- girvo 13y ago
  On my iPad Mini Retina on iOS 7.0.4 they look perfectly fine for me, I wonder what's wrong there?
- pipeep 13y ago
  I don't why Mapbox's tiles would be pixelated (except that they might have the preview page misconfigured), but I don't think Mapquest Open supports retina tiles yet. A solution is to make the tiles half the size, but then all the labels are tiny. In addition to this, I dislike Mapquest Open's tiles because they're subject to jpeg compression. Unfortunately, it's the only free tile service out there without usage limits.
sneak 13y ago
> We don't do a great job of making the point when you arrive at osm.org, but we aren't competing with Google Maps. We're competing with Navteq/Nokia and other map data providers. If you want seven billion people using it, it's going to be quite necessary to create a consumer-facing canonical front-end. I'm sure you can get lots of volunteer hackers to contribute if you throw up an MVP on github.

dhritzkiv 13y ago

Something like https://www.mapbox.com https://www.mapbox.com may help

latch 13y ago
Sure, I didn't know about that until someone else pointed it out to me just now. I agree it's a beautiful rendering. It's paid though. That point aside, Sneak said what I meant to. If the goal is to have 7 billion people using OSM, this needs to be out of the box / default. Usability can't be an afterthought or something that's left up to the developer (if the goal is that sort of penetration)
- davexunit 13y ago
  You still don't seem to understand. There's nothing that comes "out of the box". The OSM project provides the data, that's it. Use the map provider that you like best to visualize that data.
- ris 13y ago
  Thanks for this piece of insight. Nobody in OSM's community of many thousands had ever brought it up before. The reality is that if OSM is to scale to 7 billion users it itself can _not_ be the provider of all the tiles. The amount of infrastructure that this would require would be prohibitive for a nonprofit. Rendering & serving map tiles isn't like serving wikipedia pages.
- Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
  n people using OSM the dataset, _not_ n people using osm.org.
- chippy 13y ago
  use != going to the website
- rmc 13y ago
  Yes it's paid, because it's storing and rendering images that are updated by the minute in a very fast time. That sort of compution, and calculation isn't cheap. As you can see the compressed file format is about 25GB.

morsch 13y ago

Using the transport layer is a bit of an odd choice for this comparison. The regular layer has the one-way arrows, as well as a wealth of other details: foot paths, parking areas, bus stops. I suppose that does makes it look a bit cluttered, but still to me in this instance OSM is clearly superior.

latch 13y ago
As you say, that extra detail makes it cluttered. I can only speak for myself, but having traveled to completely foreign locations, that extra clutter (that paradox of choice) just adds to the confusion and overwhelmingness of unknown territory. When I look at OSM for a city that I know well, i'm not nearly as overwhelmed and I do find the information quite handy. Two different use cases, I guess.

untog 13y ago

As a counterpoint, take a look at the map of Sochi's Olympic Mountain Cluster: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?lon=40.29583&lat=43.67232&zoom=13&num=2&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?lon=40.29583&lat=43.67232&zoom... Yes, the OSM map is busier. Because it has the entire Olympic venue on it, wheras Google Maps shows it as empty space. Open, contribution-friendly data is a great thing.

nicktelford 13y ago

Google Maps is less cluttered because it's displaying far less information. In the Sochi example, take a look at the park to the left. OSM displays all the footpaths in the park, Google Maps display none. This is a running theme: all the red dashed lines are pedestrian rights of way that Google simply doesn't know about. What if you wanted to cross the railway line on foot? You'd be out of luck with Google Maps... And while we're looking at the railway, notice anything missing from Google Maps? Only the largest road (looks to be a highway) on the map! It seems like this is new and has yet to be added by the Google Maps team. OSM has been shown to have more detailed data for many Asian and European countries (like Russia, in our example) than Google Maps, and this serves to make those maps "look more cluttered". But if I was visiting Sochi, I know which map I'd rather be using.

the_imp 13y ago

> If I had to navigate Sochi, I would overwhelmingly prefer Google's version. Do note that then you might miss a few details that Google doesn't yet include, like, say, the highway A-148 that now goes through the centre of town...

alextingle 13y ago

Except Google's version seems to be missing all of the new roads they've built for the Olympics. That's why you use OSM, not because it's prettier, but because it has more detail, and it's more up to date.