It looks as though the Mercator projection is already being accounted for in the detail level, but it would be good to deprioritize unpopulated areas.
[1] https://qrank.wmcloud.org/ [2] https://github.com/hikeratlas/qrank
I'm not sure that an online popularity contest should be the input for a base map. I understand the reasoning that they're more likely to be viewed by someone, but it's also a bubble: is Wikipedia / are Wikimedia projects as popular in Asia as this base map will be? Is that used for the same purpose as this base map? Should something be shown on a map when there's a lot of drama about it rather than because a lot of people live there?
I see the advantages also, like if literally nobody lives there but it's an interesting or large landmass then there's cause for it to be included. I just don't think this is the right (objective, fairest) importance measure to use
> I just don't think this is the right (objective, fairest) importance measure to use
What's "right" can depend on the purpose of the map.
It's showing an entire province in the Netherlands as disconnected from the rest of the country, like it's an island (it's not), but knows to name five cities inside of that province, several of which basically on top of each other. (The inclusion of the afsluitdijk, on the other hand, is unnecessary detail imo but I get that it's hard to programmatically select those tweaks about what's considered land which it needs to draw and just some sea infrastructure)
I should open a ticket on the issue tracker but am not logged in on mobile so the best I can do atm is an HN comment. If someone else has a moment and feels the same way, feel free to cite this comment towards shifting the ratio a little! Or introducing a minimum separation distance between cities, or getting a smaller overall file, whatever the ideal solution may be but the current ratio is a tad unnecessary
French polynesia doesn't even exists on the map.
I hope those can be fixed, I love the concept.
The zoom needs to be locked this map should not be used/critiqued beyond a certain level and that needs to be more apparent. You can see the same the map that Ache posted bellow, as long as you keep zoomed out it is mostly good enough. My point is that this is not a sloppy job, but you are right that neither managed to solve the hardest problem.
And some, notably Manchester, are entirely absent.
But Wrexham is shown - so the priorities seem correct. ;-)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrexham_A.F.C.#2020%E2%80%93pr...
It's odd - they've got places like Stockport, Salford, Oldham etc, just not Manchester. Manchester has the highest population of the boroughs in Greater Manchester
[edit: also still kinda broken though because Southport, Blackpool, Burnley, Grimsby etc. all appear before Manchester which makes no sense.]