[teeja]

I noticed the WP layer missing (on the public web maps) quite a long time ago. Very disappointing. (I heard there was a disagreement between WP and Google that may have precipitated that.) Along with that, I believe that the amount of information detail on Google's (public web) maps has been dropping steadily. I've assumed that's because of increased mobile usage necessitating bandwidth-trimming measures. (No hard examples, based on expectations created by prior experience.)

Similar things seem to have been happening at OpenStreetMap ... the gradual fade of a certain kinds of detail. Zoom in on a region and see what kind of luck you have identifying bodies of water. (Same problem at Google.) I've had to switch to the MapQuest version for that.

[hnha]

Can you give more detail on what you are missing in the osm map and link to examples? That style is open, unlike.the others.

[teeja]

Well, for example compare:

OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/51.3825/-68.5375 (I don't see anything on the St. Lawrence River either...)

Mapquest http://mapq.st/18F1XnO

Looking at LARGE bodies of water away from populated regions, I'm seeing very few labels anywhere.

[yellowbkpk]

Prior to the last half of August the OSM.org style had not been touched in several years. If you're seeing problems you should file a bug on the style's Github page:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

[wpietri]

Could you say more about the disagreement between Wikipedia and Google? I hadn't heard that.

[teeja]

I guess I was thinking of this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57410234-93/wikipedia-dumps... which was a year ago April (how time flies...)

IIRC before that time GM were thickly populated with WP icons, and that diminished over time.