The app has many shortcoming sure. But criticizing an icon is getting petty. Icons are abstractions of items, not the item. So, while it could be used as representative of the problems of the map in an editorial way, it's not really a problem.
Precisely. The maps icon has basically taken the on-ramp for the highway and abstracted it away for simplicity. Because there actually is an on ramp that you turn left onto after the overpass this icon is accurate.
If they had included the amount of detail shown in the second accurate picture on the link it would look completely cluttered and amateur.
The icon is rendered in a quarter of a square inch. Making it abstract and not directly representative is for legibility and visual reasons. Anyone navigating based off the icon for a navigation app deserves to drive into an overpass piling, because they would undoubtedly endanger others if they were on the road.
Note: the linked article was not originally written by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle, but rather republished from Business Insider (the small logo to indicate this seems a bit subtle to me).
I would argue that this is a worthwhile distinction, in that Business Insider is generally regarded as being closer to the inflammatory and attention-grabbing nature of a tabloid than a traditional news publication—though I recognize that they are simply one of many popular outlets using similar tactics.
When did it become "terrible"? It has some problems that are a result of being brand new and behind Google's years of experience, but I don't think any of this warrants being "terrible."
We saw this criticism of the icon when the beta came out as a "lol, that's mildly entertaining" months ago. It's just an icon. It's not supposed to be used as literal directional advice. Do these people really expect them to put the very slight angle of the on-ramp in an icon?
This is starting to get really painfully ridiculous.
