Hacker News Reader

Comment by appplication | Hacker News Reader

I love OSS products, especially OpenStreetMap, but I have a hard time believing it could be better than the big players. Apple and Google both use OSM data as well, but supplement it with massive internal mapping efforts. What makes Organic Maps better? If it’s interface and features, sure I can buy that. I’m not sure I would believe that base map correctness or POIs could ever be better though. It’s such a hard and ever changing problem, those with the superset of information will always have more the capability to build a better map.

View on HN

Depending on country the OSM data might be better than the Apple/Google. And they dont integrate everything. For example there is Mapy.cz which is Czech map app that uses OSM plus their data and specifically for hiking or cycling around europe its way better than anything apple/google. Apple maps are really bad in mosts part of europe.

Dont forget that most european state mapping projects get integrated into OSM and the data is often better than what Google has. Their only upside is all the tracking data so they know where people currently dont drive. Something open source apps (and most likely even commercial european ones) wouldnt dare to gather.

> What makes Organic Maps better? > I’m not sure I would believe that base map correctness or POIs could ever be better though.

You'll be surprised. I cannot speak for Organic Maps, but I can speak for OSMand tested for years in Germany and Japan. Same OSM data at the end of the day. Even today, OSMand distinguishes better between building blocks. I see subdivisions of address numbers, which Google Maps hides with it's minimalist grey for the whole apartment block design.

Further more, I often see small walkways and paths simply not represented in Google Maps, whereas they are in Google Maps. And for some reason, here in Japan Google Maps often suggests too-clever for its own good detours, which end up being way slower, whereas OSMand with it's simpler(?) navigation algorithm sticks to more consistent routes along bigger roads.

If address and POI search could be further improved, I wouldn't see a reason to use Google Maps ever again.

I concur. OSMand may not be super user friendly, but the quality of OSM maps is way above Google in terms of details.

Google (and Apple) maps are very car-centric, so they are on the same level as OSM in that regard, but OSM knows about every foot/cycle path and even has different levels of "quality" for them.

What I miss in Organic Maps compared to OSMAnd is being able to choose a category of POIs which are then shown even when zoomed further out - useful if you are looking for e.g. restaurants nearby.

Either this doesn't do what you want, or you just haven't discovered it yet, but in case it's the latter: I can e.g. search for "restaurant" in Organic Maps, then tap the Floating Action Button with the map icon, and then it will show all search results on the map, even when zoomed out.

Actually that's exactly what I wanted, thanks for the hint! I just wasn't expecting to find it under the "search" function - I have mostly used OSMAnd until now, and I only learned of Organic Maps through HN and installed it a few weeks ago, same as the author of the blog post. Even better, the search function also has a "categories" tab where you can select "places to eat", "sights", "transport", "petrol", "parking", "ATM" etc. Looks like they put a lot of thought into "streamlining" the UI, and the individual functions are more versatile than you might expect...

but the quality of OSM maps is way above Google in terms of details.

For some data in some part parts of the world. In rural (and even suburban) Sweden for example half the buildings are missing, many roads aren't named and search is straight up broken. What it will give you over Google is that every hiking trail and bike path is included.

For what it’s worth, mapping addresses to locations is a completely different problem to mapping itself.

True, but it is also one of the most commonly used functions for mobile map apps, and without that feature working reliably your app can never become someones primary map app. At best you can become a backup app for those times Google/Apple Maps doesn't work.

I experience the same in Bulgaria - many street names or street numbers are missing or even wrong (e.g. I search for a street and Maps.ME finds a feet track inside a park 2-3km away of the real street)

> If address and POI search could be further improved, I wouldn't see a reason to use Google Maps ever again.

For my part this works well enough on OSMand/Organic maps but what they lack is traffic information.

On my main route there can be anywhere from 0 to 1h of traffic, and Google maps seems to be very accurate at estimating it.

Anytime I don't need traffic info, I use another map application because Google maps had all kinds of errors and missing information, but no other app has reliable traffic information (I realise Google has it because people use Google maps, but I wish it was different).

Well, I can speak about just single european capital, but when it comes to maps, visual presentation is everything. Google maps are gray-on-gray unlabelled mess of equally wide smoothed out streets, no building numbers, almost no detail except on largest zoom — it is impossible to orient by that map. (apple maps are no better)

Organic maps has large labels, building numbers, a lot of relevant details visible, I can immedeately find the area I am interested in, see all possible routes, find addresses by sight etc.

It does not matter how much information google has, if it does not show you anything at all.

> those with the superset of information will always have more the capability to build a better map.

Technical capabilities. But not incentives, and not even capabilities without the qualifier "technical", for the simple reason that they as companies can't decide to not do the evil or stupid thing for the sake of not doing an evil or stupid thing, only ever for other reasons. The bright people at Google or Apple can't decide "fuck it, let's just do something that's actually good instead of what middle management and fucking marketing thinks is software". They do not have that option, any rando is more free (though not necessarily capable) to make something great than anyone at any of these large "players". OSS can turn bad and be run into the ground too, of course, but not necessarily, while these giants pump out crap because there is no way they couldn't.

Do they really use OSM data? A few years ago we travelled in the Puna de Atacama region in Argentina, where most roads are just dirt tracks in the desert. Despite the zone being very sparely populated, most of the tracks are properly mapped on OSM. We used maps.me to have offline OSM maps (don't even dream of mobile Internet there, unless you use a satellite connection), and they proved to be very accurate. In most places, Google Maps wasn't even showing the presence of a road...

About ten years back, a friend of mine devoted his spare time to mapping on OSM. Once every single local bike path was added, he started adding roads to North Korea based on satellite imagery. Folks just like making maps, even in places Google can’t make a buck.

No, Google Maps doesn't use OSM data at all.

at all is a bit too far

See image at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

(but it uses approximately no OSM data)

From my experience, Google is better for "I''m in a big western city and need to find a supermarket and check its up-to-date opening hours".

OSM-based apps are much better for "I'm in a middle of nowhere and want to understand the detailed topography of the place, and see what's available in the village".

In big Western cities, supermarket chains often have a corporate website with a store locator that shows opening hours. And then you can add that info to OSM so that other people in the future can get it from their map app.

> check its up-to-date opening hours

Since COVID, these hours could have been hallucinated up by ChatGPT and be more accurate, at least in Europe.

Do the big players provide you simple downloads of entire countries in under 1GB, offline search and routing?

It's not the most complete data but it's by far the fastest mapping app when using offline data. Most intuitive point and click routing. Elevation data. Ability to load GPX/KML if you hike. And it will blow your mind how much is contained in the offline data: wikipedia articles, open/close times, etc

OSM data is way, way better than Google Maps. The difference in detail is staggering. We've been to 21 states over the last couple of years by RV and Google is wrong about speed limits nearly every day. It had us driving on small, rutted dirt roads that were clearly marked as dirt roads in OSM (that's what actually led me to use OSM more).

Campgrounds were even worse... In Jasper about 90% of the camp trails were on OSM, Google had none. And I took the opportunity to add the rest because OSM is editable by anyone. Google's "ground truth" effort is an abject failure.

> it could be better than the big players.. What makes Organic Maps better?

For hiking, OSM data and by that OsmAnd and Organic Maps are just massively better and have more paths, with an better interface and visualization, which also works perfect offline.

For cars and routing, and finding special shops sure google is bettwr - on the other hand here I am on a tourist island and Google marking certain roads blocked though they are not (and by that, making more cars turn early, so this is a positive feedback loop? Thought by just driving the road multiple times I could fix that, but not that easily :D)

It depends on the region. In Lithuania address data is automatically updated in OSM from official sources while Google Maps may not show current addresses which were added or changed for years. Overall, we should look why every country on earth does not provide constantly updated map data publicly for free. I doubt that fees collected from sale of map data come near the cost of missed deliveries, burned energy and time to wander around in order to find locate desired destination.

> Apple and Google both use OSM data as well, ...

Apple does, Google doesn't!

And even Apple don’t use it everywhere. I don’t see any OSM data in Apple Maps for Australia, at least.

For me the problem is not the mapping, but all the other data. At least on Spain OSM mapping data is great, specially outside the main streets and roads. But all the community (and other places) extra data is quite useful:

All the business and places (so you don't have to remember the exact address for a place, just enter the name), schedules, traffic, temporary route changes (like road workers, accidents or the like...). That conveniences are great.

OTOH, in OSM you have all the metadata accessible and free. Trash bin locations, type of roads, traffic lights, tactile floor for blind people, number of steps on a stair, type of buildings...

But where I use OSM the most (almost always) is out of the city. For hiking, bicycle routes, out in the field...

> What makes Organic Maps better?

Priorities.

Google Maps exists as a place to show ads.

Organic Maps exists to be a map app.

I believe this is where crowdsourcing could come in. Gamify the apps like Waze did. Collect traffic data anonymously. I think it can be done. I think a big barrier would be server resources but there are surely people with means who could help.

> I love OSS products, especially OpenStreetMap, but I have a hard time believing it could be better than the big players. Apple and Google both use OSM data as well, but supplement it with massive internal mapping efforts.

Apple Maps doesn't even support bike directions. I live in Copenhagen, therefore making Apple Maps pretty useless. It's a classic Silicon Valley app made for the tech boomers in charge at Apple who presumably drive everywhere in electric cars.

Google Maps is better at bike directions, but when I use it for public transportation it's now trying to sell me on routes where I need to rent an e-scooter instead. I only use public transportation (as opposed to riding a bike) when I need to bring our baby somewhere with me. Since there is no way to turn this "feature" off, the directions are often useless to me. I now use a Danish app for all public transportation directions.

Just about the only thing Google Maps is clearly better at is satellite images and open/close times for shops.

As an aside, which Danish app do you use for public transport ? Rejseplanen ?

Yes

There is no real competition going on with the big players anynore - Google Maps for example constantly jumps around to show ads, randomly zooms in and out when searching, has extremely low contrast, doesn't show all POIs it knows of when searching, and limits what one can search by (e.g. there's no selection of cuisine anymore for restaurants), and so on.

I fully believe that OSM apps already beat it for specific use cases (e.g. Organic Maps for tourism, OSMAnd for cycling & hiking, etc.), and I don't think that being small & open source is a real limit even for an all-purpose maps app, as long as the big players like easy money more than providing features & value to the user, and don't feal threatened by any of the alternatives.

TL;DR: it's good for competition and Google Maps isn't really that good, as long as it's enough to still make loads of money.

Tbf you can filter by cuisine - just not on iOS, for some reason. They only have 10K geo engineers so I guess we should cut them slack - that’s what, only $3,000,000,000 a year in salaries alone?

> “and Google both use OSM data as well”

Pretty sure Google doesn't use OSM

I mean, you could give it a try first, but cool...cool....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com