6 ms·

> Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple year

> Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now. I'm sure that, for whatever product in the world, you can find a subset of people in the world who will swear that such product is, in they experience, the best in the world.

nickysielicki 8y ago
Mapping is not a subjective topic, though. I'm saying that OSM data is objectively better for the rural parts of the world I've been to.
- lwansbrough 8y ago
  An interesting benefit of Google Maps which (I don’t think?) is available in OSM: different maps for countries with boundary disputes. Google is basically the de facto map, even as far as many governments are concerned, and so showing localized maps of disputed areas may actually be saving lives.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    Osm tracks disputed borders. A vector tile based view could show differences based on location. The tiles served from osm.org don't.
  - rmc 8y ago
    Yes, OSM.org shows one map for everyone. But you can take the OSM database, and make your own map to show whatever you want. For example, the Indian OSM community have an OSM map, which shows the borders of India as per Indian law (w.r.t. Kashmir) https://openstreetmap.in/#5/22.150/79.081 https://openstreetmap.in/#5/22.150/79.081 vs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/22.167/79.102 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/22.167/79.102
- ghaff 8y ago
  >for the rural parts of the world I'm sure that's true. Google Maps seems to be better or at least more consistent (and better at routing with real-time information obviously) for the things that Google cares about. Which doesn't include rural areas, hiking trails, etc.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > I'm saying that OSM data is objectively better for the rural parts of the world I've been to. Which is a subjective factor. "X is objectively better for the categories that I subjectively selected". Mapping is a subjective topic, simply because there are endless ways to evaluate and compare maps, so attributing any type of weight to any factor is a subjective exercise based on your own personal preferences.
  - another-cuppa 8y ago
    What's your reason for thinking Google is the best then? Do you even use maps for anything except major highways?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickysielicki 8y ago
    I'll agree that what layers a map ought to show is a subjective matter. But if you have two maps and they both have a shared subset of layers, you can (for that subset) objectively evaluate which map more accurately represents the real world, eg: has more objects than the other map, and/or has objects marked more accurately. And what I'm saying is that for the layers that they have in common, I think OSM wins hands down.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      The place where you live and the places you happen to visit is a subjective factor. Other people (who visit other places) might have a different overall experience, even if you'd agree with them on any place you both visited.
- mooman219 8y ago
  It is a subjective topic. Each service provides different layers of data, with varying amounts of coverage for each layer. People have opinions on how important each layer is, and what's acceptable in terms of coverage for those layers. Where I went to college, near Rochester NY, housing data is nearly non-existent in OSM, while Google Maps happily provides it and 3D models of them too. Where I am in Seattle, OSM has parking information while Google Maps does not.
- danbolt 8y ago
  Interesting, when I took Geography 101 the first thing they taught was “mapping is super subjective”.
da_chicken 8y ago
Except for Lotus Notes.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Not too fast: http://www.ilovelotusnotes.net/ http://www.ilovelotusnotes.net/

nickysielicki 8y ago

Mapping is not a subjective topic, though. I'm saying that OSM data is objectively better for the rural parts of the world I've been to.

lwansbrough 8y ago
An interesting benefit of Google Maps which (I don’t think?) is available in OSM: different maps for countries with boundary disputes. Google is basically the de facto map, even as far as many governments are concerned, and so showing localized maps of disputed areas may actually be saving lives.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Osm tracks disputed borders. A vector tile based view could show differences based on location. The tiles served from osm.org don't.
- rmc 8y ago
  Yes, OSM.org shows one map for everyone. But you can take the OSM database, and make your own map to show whatever you want. For example, the Indian OSM community have an OSM map, which shows the borders of India as per Indian law (w.r.t. Kashmir) https://openstreetmap.in/#5/22.150/79.081 https://openstreetmap.in/#5/22.150/79.081 vs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/22.167/79.102 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/22.167/79.102
ghaff 8y ago
>for the rural parts of the world I'm sure that's true. Google Maps seems to be better or at least more consistent (and better at routing with real-time information obviously) for the things that Google cares about. Which doesn't include rural areas, hiking trails, etc.
ucaetano 8y ago
> I'm saying that OSM data is objectively better for the rural parts of the world I've been to. Which is a subjective factor. "X is objectively better for the categories that I subjectively selected". Mapping is a subjective topic, simply because there are endless ways to evaluate and compare maps, so attributing any type of weight to any factor is a subjective exercise based on your own personal preferences.
- another-cuppa 8y ago
  What's your reason for thinking Google is the best then? Do you even use maps for anything except major highways?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nickysielicki 8y ago
  I'll agree that what layers a map ought to show is a subjective matter. But if you have two maps and they both have a shared subset of layers, you can (for that subset) objectively evaluate which map more accurately represents the real world, eg: has more objects than the other map, and/or has objects marked more accurately. And what I'm saying is that for the layers that they have in common, I think OSM wins hands down.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    The place where you live and the places you happen to visit is a subjective factor. Other people (who visit other places) might have a different overall experience, even if you'd agree with them on any place you both visited.
mooman219 8y ago
It is a subjective topic. Each service provides different layers of data, with varying amounts of coverage for each layer. People have opinions on how important each layer is, and what's acceptable in terms of coverage for those layers. Where I went to college, near Rochester NY, housing data is nearly non-existent in OSM, while Google Maps happily provides it and 3D models of them too. Where I am in Seattle, OSM has parking information while Google Maps does not.
danbolt 8y ago
Interesting, when I took Geography 101 the first thing they taught was “mapping is super subjective”.

da_chicken 8y ago

Except for Lotus Notes.

ucaetano 8y ago
Not too fast: http://www.ilovelotusnotes.net/ http://www.ilovelotusnotes.net/