Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I'm originally from Cincinnati, and the National Geographic Map makes better choices about what to show. Norwood and Newport are important. The Roebling bridge is not.



I'm in Chicago and agree generally; National Geographic's choice of small town labels is better curated. My guess is that Imus worked from population statistics and optimized to fit the most "people" in the labels he chose.

That said, it seems straightforward that National Geographic would have better-curated detail (they presumably spent millions to build theirs with a team of people). Meanwhile, the actual map layout Imus constructed is pretty amazing, and National Geographic's is merely legible (look at the river label in Cincinatti again, and the confusion it caused on this very thread).


I can't imagine why someone downmodded you. And I'm equally surprised at how large he made the label for Roebling bridge.

One bridge gets as much space as a city? I looked it up on wikipedia - the bridge has lots of historical value sure - but more than an entire city?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: