On: Google Maps, Bing Maps, & Yahoo Maps: Cartographic...

[Frazzydee]

The article has map samples for comparison at the bottom. I made one for OpenStreetMap, and tried my best to make it a fair comparison.

- Approximately the same zoom level, judged by distance between cities and size of land masses.

- 387x387 pixels (same as images in article)

- Map of approximately the same location

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/3999/screenshot20100501at...

Here is a second image, zoomed-in by one notch. The level of detail provided is more comparable, but arguably I shouldn't have to zoom in to get this. http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5959/screenshot20100501at92...

[yellowbkpk → Frazzydee]

There are a bunch of different renderings of OSM data available. More importantly, you can download the data and render it however you'd like.

Cloudmade's default rendering of New York looks pretty decent: http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=40.741014&lng=-74.009399&... but they also let you create your own style (e.g. http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=40.741014&lng=-74.009399&...)

Lars Ahlzen uses OSM data to make beautiful maps at http://toposm.com/

...the list goes on.

[ugh → yellowbkpk]

Wow. OSM really is not even close to any of its competitors.

[Frazzydee → ugh]

I was especially disappointed after reading rmc's comment that "One of [OpenStreetMap's] statements is 'We make beautiful maps'".

It's great that the data is made public, and they play an important role there. But if we're only comparing map styles (as the article did), OSM has a long way to go.

[yellowbkpk → Frazzydee]

I completely agree. OSM attracts data nerds, not cartographers.

[wlievens → yellowbkpk]

The modern cartographer (GIS expert?) is interested more in data than in style, I daresay.

[j053003 → wlievens]

The modern user is interested in both.