[OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...

[Ed Avis]

I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on their
'contact us' page <http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map>.
The equivalent OSM map would be something like
<http://old-dev.openstreetmap.org/~pafciu17/
?module=map&center=-0.09529,51.532&zoom=15&width=700&height=600>.

Their web person said, we used to use OSM, but when we moved to our new office
we found the map showed it in the middle of a desolate area.  Nearby there are
some buildings, but in our street (Wharf Road in the centre of the map) none are
shown.  That makes it look like we are in the middle of nowhere.  Google Maps,
on the other hand, doesn't show any buildings at all, so it's not confusing.

This is the reason they told me - not my personal opinion - but I think they
do have a point.  We OSMers are used to browsing a map with different levels
of completion in different areas, but for ordinary map users seeing buildings
in some places creates an expectation that they are mapped everywhere, and so
an area with no buildings shown looks like there are none in the real world.

Obviously in this particular case the ideal answer is to finish mapping that
area and add all of the buildings.  But in general, might it be worth providing
a 'cautious' Mapnik style that renders only basic details - roads, street names
and place names, plus basic amenities like parks and stations - as a replacement
for other mapping providers like Google Maps?

I realize that 'OSM is about data, not slippy maps', and that OSM 'downstream'
organizations such as Cloudmade provide custom-rendered maps for websites.
But even Cloudmade's styles all show buildings; they don't seem to have a
drop-in replacement for Google or Bing Maps.

I wonder if OSM might see more adoption if a less pointy-headed slippy map
or static maps were available?

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>