What's the point in recording the names of interesting sites (often in the middle of nowhere) if no-one will ever see what they are? We see a chunky large symbol on the map but no matter how far we zoom in, we never get to see what it is?! Wouldn't it make more sense to show the site name, even if it's only at the most detailed zoom levels, as with address details? Is there any sensible way to achieve this? Lots of people browse maps to see what's worth wandering over to take a look at, and unmarked symbols are a wasted opportunity to show them where something is worth exploring. Thanks UPDATE : I've just noticed (2014-Mar-18) this has changed, the features are now named at the highest levels of zoom. Excellent!

What's the point in recording the names of interesting sites (often in the middle of nowhere) if no-one will ever see what they are? We see a chunky large symbol on the map but no matter how far we zoom in, we never get to see what it is?! Wouldn't it make more sense to show the site name, even if it's only at the most detailed zoom levels, as with address details? Is there any sensible way to achieve this? Lots of people browse maps to see what's worth wandering over to take a look at, and unmarked symbols are a wasted opportunity to show them where something is worth exploring. ThanksThanks UPDATE : I've just noticed (2014-Mar-18) this has changed, the features are now named at the highest levels of zoom. Excellent!

What's the point in recording the names of interesting sites (often in the middle of nowhere) if no-one will ever see what they are? We see a chunky large symbol on the map but no matter how far we zoom in, we never get to see what it is?! Wouldn't it make more sense to show the site name, even if it's only at the most detailed zoom levels, as with address details? Is there any sensible way to achieve this? Lots of people browse maps to see what's worth wandering over to take a look at, and unmarked symbols are a wasted opportunity to show them where something is worth exploring. Thanks