It's true that Verne was very much the inventor of what we would call today "hard" science fiction. The fact that so many of his ideas about technological hardware have come to pass is a good testament to his attention to details. But Wells, on the other hand, took the "scientific romance" in a different direction: his stories were focused more on what those scientific changes meant to humankind as a whole. "The Time Machine" wasn't about how to travel through time... it was about the possible outcome of human evolution. "The First Men in the Moon" wasn't about the practicality of Cavorite, but rather what living under extreme socialisim (the selenites) would be like.
With Verne, getting there was definitely half the fun. With Wells, it's was more about what you found out once you arrived. The other thing is, although H.G.'s science seems a bit on the "sketchy" side, at the time of it's writing, he was working from the best information available to him. But, science marches on.
I'm sure, in due time, people will look back at some of our science fiction classics being produced today with a bit of a smirk on their faces as well. The science we base our books and films and TV on will become outdated. But, like Shakespeare, will there be an underlying truth about the human condition within their pages, that will keep them relevant in the future?
The rocketship and the aliens are not enough,
nor these spacemen, sketched in rough,
The characters are the essential stuff.