3 ms·
Much better performance and much less cluttered UI, at the cost of having fewer features.
by xigoi 3mo ago
Much better performance and much less cluttered UI, at the cost of having fewer features.
- orbital-decay 3mo agoAnd at the cost of map fidelity. Complex curves look terrible at certain zoom levels in CoMaps/Organic Maps.
- Aachen 3mo agoSame in OsmAnd though. Someone recently posted a screenshot of an area they thought was badly mapped (with AI or at least not using the "make square corners" tool). Turns out to be Osmand's coordinate rounding as part of the map data compression Comparing a building in my city between the two maps by flipping between the apps, it looks identical to me. Not a scientific test though
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- bluebarbet 3mo agoThe performance advantage is small to nil, IME. The UI is admittedly cleaner, though partly (as you say) that's simply because it has a ton less features.
- xigoi 3mo agoInteresting. When I switched from OsmAnd to Organic, the map loaded much faster as I panned it.
- orbital-decay 3mo agoThe difference mostly comes from the default detail levels and shape optimization. You can make it as fast in OsmAnd as both are GPU-accelerated, but OsmAnd renders the map more detailed by default.