One explanation would be that roads are not the useful information on modern map, you search for you POI or address, and then query an itinerary, and then you have a very contrasty road, the one you need.
I suspect just looking at maps to find your way is a more and more cornered case.
This was indeed a very deliberate choice by Google, and they have been blogging about it since at least 2011[0]. There are quite some blog posts by Google and others discussing the evolution in online maps from the high contrast design focused on roads and cities, to more “fluid” designs where there is a bit more room to show buildings, forests, waterways and other landmarks that are more suited for exploration rather than navigation.
> where there is a bit more room to show buildings, forests, [...]
? What forests and what buildings, though?
The 2009 - 2011 changes are fine, I guess (indeed I don't need the roads that prominently as they were in the 2009 examples), but at some point beyond that they did jump the shark somewhat with their changes.
My personal pet peeve is that at zoom level 14, all distinction between built-up areas and non-built up areas [1] disappears and you're looking at just one indistinct mess of hazy streets on a grey back background and you can't even really tell the shape of a city from looking at that.
Individual buildings only come in at zoom level 17, by which point you're already quite zoomed in, and forests remain stubbornly hidden.
Google has the somewhat better POI integration and traffic information, but when I want to actually look at a map for orienting myself or getting a feel for an area, I much prefer Openstreetmap's style.
[1] At least where I live, the further distinction between forests and non-forested open spaces is rather rudimentary – a few random areas of fields and other open spaces are correctly shown in some sort of ochre at zoom level ≤ 13, but large areas are simply all drawn in green regardless of whether they're actually forests or not.
I find this quite sad and humorous at the same time. Personally, I'm one that loves looking at maps to familiarize myself with street names in an area of interest rather than the specific route the great Map gods of the cloud have decided for me. I tend to not rely on turn by turn navigation, and actually find it quite annoying with its incessant "in 500ft", "in 400ft", "in 300ft" kind of nagging. Being around people that are absolutely dependant on turn-by-turn directions make gives me a laugh though. On a cross country trip where you're on the same major high going West for >1000m doesn't need turn by turn, yet I've been on a trip with someone that had a damn near panic attack because I started driving without the navigation running. Sad they were that stressed about it, but still damn funny
My partner relies completely on navigation assistants, but they didn't exist when I learned to drive, and I never bothered to adopt them. What's funny is that I feel just as stressed out trying to drive with the navigator as my partner does without it! I am so used to having a high-level sense of the route, and knowing the scale of the turns and the roads involved, that I feel confused and disoriented if I try to just blindly follow the directions. I'm not very good at blindly following, either - I can't relate the distances given to a real-world sense of scale, so I frequently miss turns. Really funny how different the mental strategies used to solve the same problem can be.
People being that reliant on turn by turn navigation is not just sad, it's also quite dangerous. Any time the navigation app's instructions are wrong, unclear or simply a bit too late, it is quite likely to cause that kind of driver to make a sudden and unsafe maneuver. Having a general familiarity with your planned route and its surroundings before you put the car in gear goes a long way toward preventing those panicked reactions.
I suspect just looking at maps to find your way is a more and more cornered case.