OpenStreetMap is improving the world.

Some people think that this risk is unbearable. Others weigh the economic realities and make a case-by-case judgement. The simple truth is that it costs money to host a good tool that's always on, doesn't lose people's data, that keeps up with changes in technology and requirements.

They may not be doing it to the extent of your liking, but they are certainly are improving it (if only for the people who choose to use their service).

So they are improving the world and for free. I'm glad we all agree

Not to mention that realtime traffic data and intelligent routing around congestion is only workable by tracking individual vehicles on the road and recording how long it takes them to get from A to B.

Wrong. There is a better solution, used for traffic lights that adapt to traffic:

Use an inductive loop to count every vehicle and its speed at ever lane of every intersection and exit.

Far lower cost yet, and provides far better data. (Also is totally anonymous)

Um, what? Lower cost to dig up a street and install infrastructure inside it, than to use the cheap and ubiquitous internet and GPS connected computers that are already in every car?

Effectively, you need the infrastructure, most cities on the world have it in some way – either as inductive loops, or by using RFID toll systems, or similar.

So, you have it already, and you can get the same data out of it without the cost of breaking everyone's privacy.

We have am mixed capitalist system of free and publicly funded advancements as well as privately funded advancements.

The internet as it exists today is a demonstrate of that fact, as is the mobile smartphone market. This has obviously improved the lives of billions of people and would not have existed without both private (proprietary) and public contributions.

But then their site and UX are so bad, I always cry when I use it for the lost effort of so many people.

BUT... as technologists / hackers and people with (presumably) a broader vision, I think the onus is on us to prefer and to advocate for services which are "open" or "free" / "libre" (without getting too deeply into the definitions of "open" and/or "free" here).

I would say that it would be wrong to stay that Google Maps doesn't make the world a better place, but I'd also agree with your general sentiment and say let's do all we can to promote OpenStreetMap and the like.

This is not true. Many APIs are available, specifically to allow building 3rd-party apps: Directions API, Distance Matrix API, Elevation API, Geocoding API, and so on. See https://developers.google.com/maps/pricing-and-plans/

They purchased data from a mapping company. Ten years ago, the two largest mapping companies in the world were Navteq and Tele Atlas. Google used to buy data from these companies as well, but they stopped paying and decided to build up their own maps data from scratch.

> Even Bing's Maps are more usable.

If you zoom to Sarajevo and look at the bottom-right of the Bing Maps window, it says: "© 2015 HERE. © 2015 Microsoft Corporation."

Navteq was bought by Nokia, got renamed HERE Maps, and has just been sold to a consortium of German automakers.

Microsoft currently has a multi-year contract with HERE Maps as part of their deal with Nokia. Also, Helmut Panke is on the Microsoft Board of Directors. He used to be the Chairman of the Management Board of BMW.

Could it be because of the maze of laws that governs public photography? In the US, it's somewhat simple: what's visible from the street can be photographed. But in other countries, you have murky laws, and Google, with deep pockets, can get sued easily.

One reason for this is that people might build a 2m tall fence around their frontyard and walk around naked, but Google with a 3m tall StreetView camera could obviously photograph that.

Google ignored the law, and hoped it would be easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, but, as Germans are, everyone asking for forgiveness will be punished even harder to prevent such business policies.

StreetView is only available in some areas, after Google put their cameras at a height of 3.5m, far above eye level, and needing written permission from everyone (cause people built hedges and fences with eyelevel in mind, so people might be in their frontyard, behind a hedge, naked, and now Google photographs that – big no-go). Just another thing where Google thought violating reasonable laws would be possible for them.

In the end, their quality is hit and miss, and the cost is too high. No public transit data, not the ability to download larger areas, etc.

Ultimately the specific terminology is unimportant. Do we agree that there's a distinction between digitizing books in a way that's accessible to everyone, and working to improve Google products that exist primarily to increase Google's revenue, and can you see why people would want to contribute to one and not the other?

Second, if Big Mac got 2000% tastier every year, and while at that, 2 billion people got to eat dinner for free everyday, it sure will make the world better.