As visually appealing and nigh-brilliant as that is, there's a fatal flaw in it that means I'll never touch the stuff:

It distorts the map to enhance meaningful areas. All those images are of the same area, compare them to the normal map on the left at the top of the article.

Brilliant and deadly. I use maps because they're physically accurate, so I can estimate times / distances between things, and find alternate paths if needed, and know if I went too far. The distortion there is way too significant to do that sort of analysis, though.

I know I may very well be in the minority in that, but there you have it. I'd love to see a large comparative study between "real" people. Gut-feeling is that most would like it, though, because it seems few outside the geek world are efficient at information filtering.